# Political Parties: Support or Defend Your Political Affiliations



## Matt308 (Jul 28, 2008)

Okay Forum Members... the Admins and Mods have cussed (and discussed) the idea for a place to post your thoughts about your particular political affiliation, its merits, advantages compared to others, and why other beliefs are a trifle off-base.

This will be the ONLY sticky thread where the mods will come down hard on any of the following are used in a disparaging format:

1) Personal attacks against forum members, political persons, or related individuals. It will be acceptable to quote political persons plans, actions, activities and accomplishments. You move it beyond that and the Mods have full discretion to warn, delete, and ban.

2) Disparaging comments on sexual orientation, gender, race, religion, or skin color.

3) Use of extreme foul language in any format.

4) Posting of off-color, inappropriate or rated-R (adult only) video links, URLs, or pictures will not be tolerated.

Okay you GOP, Democrats, liberals, right wingers, neo-cons, progressives, Greens, Socialists, Fascists, conservatives, constitutionalists, Nazis, KKK'ers and conspiracy theorists; put your philosophical beliefs upon the table in a coherent format. State your pros. Defend your cons.

But most importantly, behave yourselves. If the Sticky gets out of hand, LesOfPrimus will shut it down like a subprime foreclosure.

And let the debate begin...


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 28, 2008)

Oh... and no more whining about unfair Forum practices against any particular affiliation. It's annoying.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Jul 28, 2008)

No political affiliation for me. Guess you would call me an independent. But don't get me wrong, I'm a traditional, conservative American and in today's political climate that means I'm generally voting Republican.

I've never understood party affiliation. The terms Republican, Democrat, etc. really have no meaning to me. A person's beliefs, value system and philosophy should govern his vote. I believe in the Judeo-Christian tenents and beliefs this country was founded on, and that certainly influences my vote.

What I don't understand are the folks who vote one party or the other, based on the fact that their father, grandfather or entire family have historically voted that way.  

I don't believe in the secular progressive liberal idea of what America should be.

I will resist the influence of the ACLU, George Soros and the rest of the far left, San Francisco type nutjobs that are ruining this country.

Does that answer the question?

TO


----------



## Freebird (Jul 28, 2008)

ToughOmbre said:


> No political affiliation for me. Guess you would call me an independent. But don't get me wrong, I'm a traditional, conservative American and in today's political climate that means I'm generally voting Republican.
> 
> I've never understood party affiliation. The terms Republican, Democrat, etc. really have no meaning to me. A person's beliefs, value system and philosophy should govern his vote. I believe in the Judeo-Christian tenents and beliefs this country was founded on, and that certainly influences my vote.
> 
> ...



A noble idea TO, but could you really vote for a Democrat? 

And I know that quite a few Republican leaning regulars here {who I know like!  } have stated they have "Judeo-Christian" beliefs, does that include the Christian ideas of "Morality"? Or is that a personal choice?


----------



## Freebird (Jul 28, 2008)

ToughOmbre said:


> secular progressive liberal idea
> 
> TO




One thing I have to state TO, I have an objection to the "Secular Progressive" label, I know Bill O'Reilly has coined this term, but what he calls "SP" liberals have little in common with the "Progressive" movement, as exemplified by Teddy Roosevelt. 

It's time that the term "Progressive" was re-claimed for what it meant.

Some of the ideas advanced by Priogressives:

from Wiki: Progressivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1.) *Secret Ballots* for elections

2.) *Women's Sufferage*

3.) *Elected Primarys* {not by party bosses}

4.) *Proffesional Administration* {Government personnel in the INS, FBI, NSC, etc. should be proffesional, non political - not party hacks}

5.) *Eliminate Government Corruption*

6.) *Trust-Busting* - Eliminate Monopolies

7.) *Government Regulations* for Environment, Safety, Banking, Labor etc.

8.) *Ending Child Labor*

9.) *Consevation of Natural Resources*


In Canada in the early part of the Century the "Progressive" party merged with the "Conservative" party to form the "Progressive Conservatives" until the 1990's when the "Progressive" was dropped.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Jul 28, 2008)

freebird said:


> A noble idea TO, but could you really vote for a Democrat?
> 
> And I know that quite a few Republican leaning regulars here {who I know like!  } have stated they have "Judeo-Christian" beliefs, does that include the Christian ideas of "Morality"? Or is that a personal choice?



I would vote for a conservative Democrat over a liberal Republican EVERY time free. 

As stated, my idea of morality is based on the Judeo-Christian beliefs but yes, also personal, and I respect the personal morality choices of others.

TO


----------



## ToughOmbre (Jul 28, 2008)

freebird said:


> One thing I have to state TO, I have an objection to the "Secular Progressive" label, I know Bill O'Reilly has coined this term, but what he calls "SP" liberals have little in common with the "Progressive" movement, as exemplified by Teddy Roosevelt.



Fair point free. My use of the term would mirror O'Reilly's use and meaning of SP. "Secular" is what differentiates the meaning in my opinion.

TO


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 28, 2008)

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pU6GSl2yu_o_


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 28, 2008)

Sorry, couldn't resist. Says it all to me about the liberal (progressive) agenda.


----------



## Freebird (Jul 28, 2008)

Good evening Matt, Kudo's for the political thread idea. 

And no whining!  

For the record, I'm as P'd off at the liberals too for hijacking "Progressive", almost as bad as the oxymoron "devout" Muslims blowing off bombs.

Perhaps you should move posts 746 - 754 from the "Global Warming" thread over here, as it starts a discussion of Socialism between Ren, Lear, Adler myself. This would be the right place to discuss the merits of Socialism vs. Capitalism I would think.

Cheers.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jul 28, 2008)

I think liberals will want money oil too once they get their hands on it.


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 28, 2008)

freebird said:


> Perhaps you should move posts 746 - 754 from the "Global Warming" thread over here, as it starts a discussion of Socialism between Ren, Lear, Adler myself. This would be the right place to discuss the merits of Socialism vs. Capitalism I would think.
> 
> Cheers.



Nope. But carry on.


----------



## Freebird (Jul 28, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> Nope. But carry on.



Umm Ok.

Would you have an objection if I quoted the relevant parts here then?

It seemed to be moving totally off topic for "Global Warming", but I for one would be interested to have the discussion continue, here if appropriate.


----------



## JugBR (Jul 29, 2008)

socialism its easy to explain, just read karl marx, its everything there. the meanings of production in the hands of a strong and global onde-party state, the "dictatureship of workers", thats the idea of socialism. marx realized socialism as a transition period between the capitalist soceiety to what we call utopia. the meanings of production in the hands of workers comunities(theres no unions that time anymore), no more countries or frontiers no presidents, no mayors no senators, no states, but no crime, no wars, etc... utopia.

but understand the capitalism its quite more complicated. the capitalism of 21 century is very caotic. if theres an economic crisis in thailand, you will feel that in your homeland, because companies and the investiments have no passport. soccer balls from pakistan, eletronic devices from china, call centers from india, french cars assembler in argentina.... etc. everybody wants too sell more to other countries and buy less.

so, its kind of a hypocrisy, like, when we wants to sell more to another contry we talk about free market and free world, democracy, bla bla bla... then when the guy are selling much in your country and your home enterprises cant take the competition, lets talk about nationalism, im proud to be xxxx this is a xxxx factory with xxxx workers bla bla bla bla bla...

polititians ? must be vaccinated and castrated.

my party ?

once time ago i voted for lula, but im disapointed with him and the labour party (PT), because they was so corrupt than the other ones. but i believed they wasnt, my mistake.

left ? right ? once time the former argentinian president juan peron said: the power its like a violin: should be taken by the left and played by the right. so im a nationalist. 

not nationalist like that ultra-right-conservateur/neo-nazi that you see in many parts, but more like nationalist as put to work together all people from left, center and right who is not corrupt and really loves brazil. 

to resolve the main problems of that nation. in some issues left is better than right. another issues needs a right view to resolve. the ideology should be love brazil. thats the most rich country in the world. its a shame so many poverty.


----------



## Freebird (Jul 29, 2008)

JugBR said:


> socialism its easy to explain, just read karl marx, its everything there. the meanings of production in the hands of a strong and global onde-party state, the "dictatureship of workers", thats the idea of socialism.



Umm no Marx was talking about Communism, not the same as Socialism


----------



## stasoid (Jul 29, 2008)

freebird said:


> Umm no Marx was talking about Communism, not the same as Socialism



He was talking abouth both. Sorry for copy/pasting but here it is:

Socialism refers to any of various economic and political concepts of state or collective (i.e. public) ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods and services, some of which have been developed into more or less highly articulated theories and/or praxis. [1] *In a Marxist or labor-movement definition of the term, socialism is a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism* and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done with the goal of creating a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.

Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Freebird (Jul 29, 2008)

I will re-post the relevent parts of our discussion of socialism that branched off from the "Global warming" thread.



Learstang said:


> You are indeed correct about the two main American political parties not being around during Mediaeval times, and that the original Republican Party opposed slavery. I am not indicting the Republican Party for slavery or witchcraft, I am simply making a point about right-wingers, or reactionaries, or conservatives or whatever you wish to call them. My point is that history seems to show that they are usually fighting a losing, rearguard battle against reason and science, hence my references to witchcraft, the Earth being the centre of the solar system, etc. Using the term Republican is simply a shorthand for conservatives, just as many on this site seem to use Democrat (or dimocrat – talk about vitriolic) as a comprehensive term for “leftists”.



I don't agree with "conservative" being always reactionary and opposed to science. There is the "Teddy Roosevelt" model of conservatism, pro-environment, and for keeping thye big corporations honest from abusing their power.



Learstang said:


> Sorry to interrupt this mainly right-wing love fest, but as a left-winger (and as a recovering Republican, it’s part of my therapy), I feel I have to respond (although Danielmellbin has done an exemplary job). Renrich (I think you implied this earlier, if you did not, accept [or not] my apologies), leftist does NOT mean communist as you seem to think (although it may mean socialist – see the definition of socialist, democratic). In terms of the media generally agreeing with the left-wing point of view, did it ever occur to you that they mainly agree, as you assert, because the left-wing view is correct, and they’re just reporting the truth? No, it probably didn’t. But think about it – when have right-wingers been proven correct over the long haul?





renrich said:


> Yep, that makes a lot of sense. The majority of the media is left wing so they must be right in what they say. We should let the media lead us, most of which have never done anything concrete. All they do is talk about what other people do. They don't produce anything except BS. They don't create jobs for other people. They don't build anything. They exaggerate, they mislead, they sensationalise, they obfuscate, lie and you think they should be listened to. The only difference between communism and socialism is in degree and in all forms they are failures. In most cases the majority is always wrong. The only thing that saves this country from people like you is that you can't get everyone to vote!





Learstang said:


> Renrich – ouch, looks like I touched a nerve. My “observation” about the media was somewhat sarcastic, which you didn’t seem to catch. Your observation that “The only difference between communism and socialism is in degree and in all forms they are failures.” is rather fatuous and once again shows a fundamental misunderstanding about the enormous differences between communism (Revolutionary Marxism) and socialism (Democratic Socialism). That would be like me saying that the only difference between Nazism and conservatism is in degree. The one thing that’s going to save this country from people like you is that this time we progressives are going to get *enough* people to vote. I find your comment interesting, "In most cases the majority is always wrong." - doesn't show much faith in democracy - you know, democracy - the reason we supposedly went to war in Iraq. Surely you must have read about democracy, it's been in all the papers. One question for you – where have you been for the last 7 years? We’ve had 7 years of “your” way and look at the results – gas at an all time high (I know, it’s because of the pinkos not allowing drilling in ANWR), Iraq is still a mess (despite the so-called success of the “surge”), our economy is in shambles, the dollar keeps sinking to new lows, mortgage failures skyrocketing, enormous deficits that may take decades to bring down – you get the point (or not). I don’t know about you, but this working-stiff hasn’t exactly prospered while people like *you* have been in control of this country.


----------



## Freebird (Jul 29, 2008)

...



renrich said:


> The only difference between communism and socialism is in degree and in all forms they are failures.





DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> So explain to me please how Canada, England, Germany, France, hell pretty much all of Europe are failures or have failed?
> 
> Seriously...





renrich said:


> The simple answer to the question about socialism versus whatever you want to call our form of government is that the less socialism the more freedom and the more dynamic the economy is. The US has the most dynamic economy in the world and also the largest. In the meantime we are also supporting the largest and most effective military in the world. Chris, in the countries you mentioned, what would their budgets and or tax code look like if they continued to spend on social programs but spent as much on defense as we do. This takes place in spite of the US becoming more socialistic every year. I have been right here for the last seven years enjoying not another attack by terrorists and enjoying 52 months of GDP growth which was a record along with low inflation rates. However I don't give a lot of credit to the Bush administration for the economy but rather it is our system, which the liberals will continue to nibble at and dismantle. If one thinks the economy is in shambles that person has not been around long. Go back and look at the housing sector, banking and S&L situation in the 80s and then you will know real problems. For your information, the "recession" we are in is still not a recession. If you blame high oil and gasoline prices on the Bush Admin. we have nothing left to discuss.


----------



## Freebird (Jul 29, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> That did not answer my question. You said they were failures. How are they failures?





renrich said:


> Chris, "failure" is a poor choice of words on my part. I should have said that relative to the US form of government, more socialistic governments IMO are not as successful or as likely to provide an environment where the citizens enjoy the maximum amount of freedom and opportunity to get ahead. You could say that the government of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela is not a failure because he still governs. Most other communist governments have failed in that those countries no longer have that system but rather a form of socialism. Of course, the terms, socialism and communism have many gradations but they certainly have some things in common. I believe that there is no perfect form of government because of man and his frailties. However the US form is probably the best that has been devised. There is no question however that we in the US are gradually moving into a more socialistic form of government. There are even greater or lesser opportunities for freedom and opportunity between the several states of the US. No one could deny that there is less government interference in Texas than there is in California. Right now, the dimocrat party is basically the party of the "public sector." The GOP represents the "private sector." The public is growing and the private is shrinking. If this trend continues,taxes will increase and the overall standard of living will not continue to improve and may even decline. We will grow less and less able to defend ourselves and our interests because our military will be starved of funding in favor of public programs. If, for instance, we have socilised medicine, we will have a bigger shortage of doctors than we already have. Good and timely medical care will be hard to find. Some dimocrats have already said they want to nationalise the oil companies. That will result in smaller supplies of petroleum and higher prices. FDR will turn out to be prophetic when he said that the communist system in the USSR will become more like us and we will become more like them.






Learstang said:


> Renrich, we may have the most dynamic and largest economy in the world but we need to look at it a little more closely and see where the money is going, because it sure as Hell isn’t going to the middle class. Middle class wages have remained stagnant, at best, under this 52 months of GDP growth you mention. GDP growth doesn’t really mean that much to the vast majority of people if they gain nothing from it. I do think the economy is in shambles, and as one who’s unemployed I know firsthand just how swimmingly things are going, and I’ve been around the block once or twice (don’t think you’re lecturing some ignorant leftwing kid just out of college). It’s interesting that you mention the 80’s, as that’s when Reagan was in power, intent on deregulating everything, including the Savings and Loans. An unregulated free-market system is a recipe for disaster (see Depression, Great). I don’t propose, nor do most progressives, a state-controlled command economy like the Soviet Union had (we saw how well that worked out). What most of us propose is a regulated free-market system, where the people are protected from the worst depredations of laissez-faire economics (see Barons, Robber; Labour, Child, etc.). Call that paternalistic, if you must, but it’s the way that makes the most sense for the most people. What regulations are for is not to create bureaucracy or undue burdens on business, but to make sure that they behave in a responsible manner to society, just as we have criminal laws to regulate individual citizens’ behaviour (you don’t propose getting rid of criminal laws, do you?). The problem with this economy is that we privatise gain (look at the huge bonuses the Fortune 500 CEO’s receive) and we socialise loss, as with the S&L crisis. We don’t get to see the profits these companies make, but we sure see our money being used to prop them up when they overextend themselves, such as Lockheed back in the 70’s and the mortgage companies today. I know firsthand a little bit about companies overextending themselves in the absence of regulations, having worked for the late, lamented Enron. I agree that the responsibility for high oil and gasoline prices can’t just be left on Bush’s doorstep, but I know damn well that if this had happened under the Clinton administration, it would all be Bill’s fault, even though for 6 years of his presidency he didn’t control the legislative branch, just the opposite of Bush’s situation. My problem with Bush is he seems to think that drilling everywhere in the U.S. is the solution, when mandating (yes – MANDATING) higher gas mileage standards for our vehicles and promoting conservation would be much more effective.



I'm not here to defend Communism or Socialism, I was pointing out that the form it supposedly exists today in Europe is far different than the "total ownership" that Marx was writing about.



Learstang said:


> "The only difference between communism and socialism is in degree and in all forms they are failures.” is rather fatuous and once *again shows a fundamental misunderstanding about the enormous differences between communism* (Revolutionary Marxism) *and socialism* (Democratic Socialism). That would be like me saying that the only difference between Nazism and conservatism is in degree.





stasoid said:


> He was talking about both. Sorry for copy/pasting but here it is:
> 
> Socialism refers to any of *various economic and political concepts* of state or collective (i.e. public) ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods and services, some of which have been developed *into more or less highly articulated theories* and/or praxis. [1] *In a Marxist or labor-movement definition of the term, socialism is a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism* and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done with the goal of creating a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.
> 
> ...



Wiki has the same quotes as on "answers.com", but I note are qualified with "various concepts" "more or less articulated theories", there is no one consensus. Also I note that the quote has a further disambiguation on Communism vs. modern Democratic Socialism



Answers.com said:


> In communist theory, socialism is the first stage on the road to full communism. It differs from communism in that it is attached to ethical and democratic values and *because it allows both common and state ownership.*
> 
> *Social democrats accepted the reality of the ‘mixed economy’, and turned their back on the Marxist analysis of capitalism* and the idea of socializing the main instruments of economic production, distribution, and exchange.


----------



## eddie_brunette (Jul 29, 2008)

I've posted this elsewhere, but after seeing this threat......




edd


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 29, 2008)

freebird said:


> Umm Ok.
> 
> Would you have an objection if I quoted the relevant parts here then?
> 
> It seemed to be moving totally off topic for "Global Warming", but I for one would be interested to have the discussion continue, here if appropriate.



As long as you abide by the rules freebird you can cut and paste until your heart is content.


----------



## Njaco (Jul 29, 2008)

I think firstly, there must be an explanation of the way Americans and Europeans see socialism and capitalism. I believe there are two different definitions among the cultures from what I gather.

I am in total agreement with TO. I base my voting rights on my ideals - not a party. Just because the Republicans closely resemble what I believe doesn't mean I haven't voted for a democrat in the past. But the 2 parties here in the US are going to such extremes, its scary.


----------



## JugBR (Jul 29, 2008)

Njaco said:


> I think firstly, there must be an explanation of the way Americans and Europeans see socialism and capitalism. I believe there are two different definitions among the cultures from what I gather.
> 
> I am in total agreement with TO. I base my voting rights on my ideals - not a party. Just because the Republicans closely resemble what I believe doesn't mean I haven't voted for a democrat in the past. But the 2 parties here in the US are going to such extremes, its scary.



americans dont see socialism. the american democracy is just more ancient than that. i think is not cultural, but the age of each democracy and its parties.

democrats are union-friendly but it dont means they are socialist

as i read, democrats wants to upper the taxes to fix the public health system and create more jobs. the republicans think to create more jobes, lower the taxes is needed.

im not american, but a good thing that a great american president(fdr) did was the "new deal". should be the time now for a "new new deal" ?


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 29, 2008)

Actually some of those programs have been utter disasters if you look at the cost vs benefit amortized over time.


----------



## renrich (Jul 29, 2008)

My compliments to the moderators for this thread. Thanks also to FB for the cutting and pasting. Wish I knew how to do it. I can never remember a time when political opinion was more polarised than it is now. Perhaps it just seems that way because of the 24/7 "news" outlets and because of the influence of the internet. Personally I don't really want the aggravation in my life that this information, misinformation and disinformation overload causes. Both sides in the debate play fast and loose with the facts in an attempt to "win" the argument. This behavior is not limited to one side or just to the internet. Some instances are that the dimocrats claim that opening up drilling offshore won't result in any new energy supply for ten years. Anyone who has any knowledge of the oil patch knows that is patently untrue and the timeline would be a year to perhaps six years. Ultra conservatives constantly talk about the "ten to twenty million" illegals in our country. Where do those numbers come from and why the huge spread? They also talk constantly about the illegals who get paid in cash and pay no taxes. Are they saying that those 10M or 20M illegals are out there mowing lawns and only accepting cash from a homeowner. If they are working, for instance as a stone mason as many are, how does the contractor expense his labor. Paying no taxes? If the illegal buys anything, cigarettes, beer, beans or tortillas, he pays sales tax. If he lives in any permanent structure he pays real estate taxes either directly or through his landlord. When talking about paying federal income tax, the facts are that an illegal with a family would probably not have income enough to even qualify for paying income tax. These deliberate falsehoods on the part of the advocates or opponents on both sides do not mean that good arguments may not exist on both sides of both questions but the credibility of the people making the statements is severely damaged as far as I am concerned. It is interesting to read some of the comments and opinions expressed.


----------



## Danielmellbin (Jul 29, 2008)

Back from holiday - been a while.  

I have already made many posts regarding politics on the forum - but might as well set the record straight:

I am a social democrat (anybody here calls me a socialist again I'll f'ing explode). 

*General political beliefs:*
I believe in a free market with the neccesary restrictions. By neccesary restriction I mean: Breaking of monopolies, product quality control, environmental control, avertion of corporatism.... etc 

I believe that certain areas of society should remain under statecontrol (transportation, schools, police, hospitals, correctional facilities etc...).

I believe in high taxes to cover education, health- and socialcare. I believe so not only out of humanitarian reasons but also for financial reasons. A broken uneducated person will strain society more than high taxes in the long run.

I believe in the right to abortion and in the complete banning of firearms.

I am split on the legalization of soft drugs

Views on age limits: Drinking: 15 years, Smoking: 18 years, driving: 18 years, voting: 18 years, 1st grade in school: 6 years

I believe in armed intervention only as a last resort. But when it is neccesary it better damn well happen. The US/UK (and others - including my own country) invasion of Iraq and the EU's lack of an initial response in Yugoslavia epotomize what I believe is completely "wrong" choices regarding armed intervention.

I believe in completely uninhibited free speach and expression - if someone wants to shreik "Heil!", to draw a cartoon of a religious profet, to burn a flag, or to make fun of the holocaust - thats fine - but don't expect me to sit idly by if something happens that I disagree with!

The society in which I live have almost all of the above qualities and views and as such I'm very content and happy. It's not a problemfree system ofcourse - but the record speaks for itself.


*Voting record past, present and future:*

I will probably never vote to the right of the centre - but deep inside i think that taking turns in 2*4 years to each side of the spectrum works the best. This keeps things in balance and removes the risk of stagnation.
If I lived in the US i would vote democratric - not for love of all the democratic views - simply for the lack of a better alternative.


Political Parties I have voted for in my 3 elections and why:

Social-democratic party: The largest of the centre/left parties here. Has a very moderate "try to please all" view on things. This has however mired them over the past years where their own views have dissapered under a smokescreen of trying to fit into what they think the voters want. If they ever regain their original views i might rejoin their "flock".

Radikale Venstre: A very academic (as in highly educated voters&leaders) party. It generally has a very centrist view slightly to the right of the above. But its views are never set and change as fast as reality does. Somehow they manage doing this without loosing any credibililty - why? Because everybody knows that they do this. They decide on every issue only after accessing all the points of view and facts. Considered an elitist party they only get some 10% of the votes. But this doesn't matter much as their biggest influence lies in the fact that they usually decide which wing wins an election as they hold the critcal 10% of the votes who swings the election one way or the other. I left them because they had a huge divide where half the party broke of into a smaller more rightwing oriented version. This removed the power of the party in the big decissions and has effectively marginalised them.

Socialistic Party: They got my latest vote. Do not let the name fool you. They are not socialistic in the words original sense. They are very similar to the first party i voted for but have an effective leadership and only change views when realities and NOT public opinion demand it.

*What I hate most about politics:*

1. Namecalling and idiotic historical comparrisons

IE. 
Calling someone from the left a communist or someone from the right a nazi.
Claiming that the situation in Iraq was comparable to WW2
Claiming that the Bush administration has done like Hitler
Calling Islamic fundamentalists - "islamo-fascists" - a cheap way to cinvince people that they are "bad" and that war is neccesary.

Looking forward to hear any disagreements or mutual beliefs you fine people might have.


----------



## renrich (Jul 29, 2008)

A town council in Los Angeles may ban fast food outlets in one of the poorer sections in town. The reason is that the fast food is making the inhabitants obese. Big Brother anyone? Since obesity and subsequent poor health are major problems(so we hear) in the US would it not make sense, when we get socialised medicine, to moniter the diets of the obese?


----------



## JugBR (Jul 29, 2008)

nice post daniel !

i also believe in high taxes, but the rich should pay more than poors and middle class.

i also agree with you, about statecontrol, the strategic areas should be property of the people and administrated by state. but isnt that dangerous politics administrating enterprises sometimes ?

i defend the righ of abortion also, but first, the anti-conceprional methods to prevent pregnacy and aids.the soceiety should be a very informed and conscient about that. light drugs ? since alcohol and cigars are legalized, why dont allow people smoke pot ? the only restricyion is about the age.


----------



## JugBR (Jul 29, 2008)

*A town council in Los Angeles may ban fast food outlets in one of the poorer sections in town. The reason is that the fast food is making the inhabitants obese. Big Brother anyone? Since obesity and subsequent poor health are major problems(so we hear) in the US would it not make sense, when we get socialised medicine, to moniter the diets of the obese?*

i think is a matter of education. you can eat a happy-meal sometimes, but you have to always eat food with vitamins, proteins and fibers. i dont like mcdonalds or burger king, but i like things even more toxic and fat than that. is tasty ? yes its tasty sure, but if you eat that all day youll be lookin like a fat pig.

so the education starts at home, with parental advisors and parental examples. now if mom and daddy likes eat happymeals, coca colas and french fries always and are both fats as pigs... its hard to educate the children...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 29, 2008)

I am a conservative and I typically vote Republican. I however have no problem voting for a Democrat, if I believe they are better for the job.

Like TO, I dont like the idea of parties, because I vote for the man (or woman) not the party.

Now having said that Obama is a fruit!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 29, 2008)

JugBR said:


> i think is a matter of education. you can eat a happy-meal sometimes, but you have to always eat food with vitamins, proteins and fibers. i dont like mcdonalds or burger king, but i like things even more toxic and fat than that. is tasty ? yes its tasty sure, but if you eat that all day youll be lookin like a fat pig.
> 
> so the education starts at home, with parental advisors and parental examples. now if mom and daddy likes eat happymeals, coca colas and french fries always and are both fats as pigs... its hard to educate the children...



It should not be the job of the local government (or any form of government) to decide what you can eat and what you cant eat. That is the job of the parents.


----------



## Freebird (Jul 29, 2008)

renrich said:


> My compliments to the moderators for this thread. Thanks also to FB for the cutting and pasting. Wish I knew how to do it.



You're Welcome! Everything you need to know in life you learn in Kindergarten.  

That's where I learned to "cut paste", but some kids just liked eating the glue... Sombody should make a law banning glue eating...



renrich said:


> A town council in Los Angeles may ban fast food outlets in one of the poorer sections in town. The reason is that the fast food is making the inhabitants obese. *Big Brother anyone?* Since obesity and subsequent poor health are major problems(so we hear) in the US would it not make sense, when we get socialised medicine, to moniter the diets of the obese?



Ok Renrich, you opened up this can of worms!!


The Republicans dogma is "Personal Choice" and "Keep Government out of the preople's business", yet they try to tell people what they can and can't do? Hypocracy?

You can smoke Marlboro's to ruin your lungs, and drink Jack Daniels until you can't stand up - no problem. But if you want to smoke a joint in the privacy of your own home - they will come and bust down the door! 

How can one be just fine and the other a horrendous crime? Please explain.

The Bush administration sued California in Federal Court to prevent them from allowing terminal cancer patients from eating or smoking Mary J {to alleviate nausea}, which was voted approved by the people in a referendum. 

You want to bake hash brownies? Off to the slammer you go!



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> It should not be the job of the local government (or any form of government) to decide what you can eat and what you cant eat. That is the job of the parents.



Where is the respect for "States Rights"? *Please point out to me where in the US constitution* does it give the Federal Government the power to rgulate what people eat or smoke? 

?erhaps they should just ban all "drugs" "intoxicants"? Caffeine, Pot, Alcohol, Nicotine, ban 'em all!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 29, 2008)

freebird said:


> Where is the respect for "States Rights"? *Please point out to me where in the US constitution* does it give the Federal Government the power to rgulate what people eat or smoke?
> 
> ?erhaps they should just ban all "drugs" "intoxicants"? Caffeine, Pot, Alcohol, Nicotine, ban 'em all!



You are preaching to the choir.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Jul 29, 2008)

Danielmellbin said:


> Back from holiday - been a while.



Welcome back Dan



Danielmellbin said:


> I believe in a free market with the neccesary restrictions. By neccesary restriction I mean: Breaking of monopolies, product quality control, environmental control, avertion of corporatism.... etc



Pretty much with you there.



Danielmellbin said:


> I believe that certain areas of society should remain under statecontrol (transportation, schools, police, hospitals, correctional facilities etc...).



OK



Danielmellbin said:


> I believe in high taxes to cover education, health- and socialcare. I believe so not only out of humanitarian reasons but also for financial reasons. A broken uneducated person will strain society more than high taxes in the long run.



 Living in New Jersey, I know what high taxes are. More money to spend, waste, steal. Can't agree on this one, not even close.



Danielmellbin said:


> I believe in the right to abortion and in the complete banning of firearms.



I was pro choice right up to the minute I saw an ultrasound of my oldest son at 12 weeks after conception; been pro life ever since. To save the life of the mother, in cases of rape and incest, I can see abortion.

Partial birth abortion, minors having abortions WITHOUT parental knowledge or consent.....NO WAY in my value system. 

In general, abortion cheapens life. I can't prove this but IMO when a girl/woman gives birth to a healthy baby and then throws it into a dumpster, I can't help but feel that the abortion mentality comes into play.

Complete banning of firearms? Deal breaker for me. One of our basic rights in America, the 2nd Amendment. Make guns illegal and guess who will still have guns....that's right, the bad guys. 




Danielmellbin said:


> I am split on the legalization of soft drugs



What do you consider soft drugs?



Danielmellbin said:


> Views on age limits: Drinking: 15 years, Smoking: 18 years, driving: 18 years, voting: 18 years, 1st grade in school: 6 years



Agree with your age limits except for drinking. I know many 15 year olds drink but let's not make it easy for them.



Danielmellbin said:


> I believe in armed intervention only as a last resort. But when it is neccesary it better damn well happen. The US/UK (and others - including my own country) invasion of Iraq and the EU's lack of an initial response in Yugoslavia epotomize what I believe is completely "wrong" choices regarding armed intervention.



I believe in the "last resort" option as well. 



Danielmellbin said:


> I believe in completely uninhibited free speach and expression - if someone wants to shreik "Heil!", to draw a cartoon of a religious profet, to burn a flag, or to make fun of the holocaust - thats fine - but don't expect me to sit idly by if something happens that I disagree with!



Free speech must be RESPONSIBLE speech. The old cliche still applies. You can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater. 

TO


----------



## Freebird (Jul 29, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You are preaching to the choir.




  Personally, I don't smoke {allergic to any smoke}, but I couldn't in any event, in my job we have to pee in a cup every few months.

*Is there anybody that can defend Bush's position on this?*   


Because it is often quoted as one of the crowning folly's of decadant European Socialism, eg. the "open" attitudes of the Dutch.


----------



## Freebird (Jul 29, 2008)

Danielmellbin said:


> I believe in the right to abortion



Yes Indeed! But why only up to 9 months? Why not round it up to a year?

Better yet, the mother should have the right to abort the child at any time up until the child is able to support itself. 

About 14 years old for boys. Perhaps 12 years for the resourceful ones. Less for girls.

{In case it isn't blatently obvious, this post is just dripping with sarcasm}


Abortion is bad almost every way you look at it, people should be reponsible for their own actions, you can't just throw your kid in the trash if you get tired of it.

That being said, I thought that the "Roe" was a *reasonable* compromise by a court that was forced to act by the total abandonment of duty by Congress.

I would be totally against the Supreme overturning Roe v Wade, or deciding this in any way. What would be the point if New Jersey banned all abortions, yet you could walk across the river to New York where they had no restriction?

The only proper resolution for this question is for Congress to step up and decide the issue, not to try to dump it on the court. 

Congress should make laws, Courts interpret them. 

{I think thats a good idea, someone should write it into the Constitution}


----------



## Learstang (Jul 29, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet, would you please explain "Obama is a fruit."?

Learstang


----------



## Marcel (Jul 29, 2008)

ToughOmbre said:


> Welcome back Dan
> Pretty much with you there. ..


Not quoted the whole post. Seems like we have more in common than I thought TO. As you seem to consider yourself a right wing thinker, I'm still a little uncertain of what the US considers right an left wing.


I'm usually reluctant expressing my political believes thus I won't discus this in depth, but I consider myself a centre-left wing voter. Usually my ideas are about the same as our social-democratic party. But I see no problem in voting right wing parties if I think my country will benefit from that. We usually have a coalition as government (different than in the US) and I sometimes believe, depending on circumstances, a coalition containing both right and left can be healthy for our country..

What I really hate are the more extreme parties (left and right), I believe they shout more than they accomplish and populist parties, last category seems to be very popular here nowadays. I firmly believe a party should have a well founded program and long-term views and should not have a "go with the flow" program.


----------



## Marcel (Jul 29, 2008)

freebird said:


> Because it is often quoted as one of the crowning folly's of decadant European Socialism, eg. the "open" attitudes of the Dutch.


Yes it is, but usually by people who never really lived here.


----------



## Freebird (Jul 29, 2008)

Marcel said:


> We usually have a coalition as government (different than in the US) and I sometimes believe, depending on circumstances, a coalition containing both right and left can be healthy for our country..
> 
> What I really hate are the more extreme parties (left and right), I believe they shout more than they accomplish and populist parties, last category seems to be very popular here nowadays. I firmly believe a party should have a well founded program and long-term views and should not have a "go with the flow" program.



Great Post Marcel, I am much in agreement, the extremes are not healthy.


What is your opinion on the legalization of soft drugs prostitution? Holland has both, so it would be nice to hear your thoughts.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 29, 2008)

Learstang said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet, would you please explain "Obama is a fruit."?
> 
> Learstang



It is just another way for me to say I do not like him and that I think he is a fake.


----------



## Danielmellbin (Jul 29, 2008)

Freebird and TO:
Regarding abortion: I suspect I might have the same reaction as you TO (when seeing my unborn child). However one more problem with illegalizing abortion is IMO that it will not stop abortion. Rather it will just confine women to damp cellars with questionable doctors or just plain home made sharp sticks. As for making rules for when to make it legal (inces, rape etc...). First of all it kindof counterdicts the first point - that the unborns life is as precious as a born life. Furthermore I suspect the allegations of rape would skyrocket.

TO:
Pot, grass, weed, skunk and the likes are what I consider soft drugs (smokey stuff ). The reason I am split is that I have close friends who have fallen victim to these drugs. BUT - their status as illegal makes them a huge financial income to criminals and less safe than they already are. Two evils as I see it. However i lean towards legalization as it seems to have worked in Holland.

Prostition should be legal in my mind. Simply to avoid serious abuse, violent pimps and the likes. (and also a place of income for the bad guys).



freebird said:


> Yes Indeed! But why only up to 9 months? Why not round it up to a year?
> 
> Better yet, the mother should have the right to abort the child at any time up until the child is able to support itself.
> 
> ...



I disagree here because I do not see an unborn infant up to the 1st trimester as being a thinking entity. But there is not much to discuss here as there is just fundamental difference in our paradigms.

TO: Regarding free speach:
I disagree and agree - ofcourse people should use sound judgement before uttering something. But on principal - there can be *no* limits IMO. This has been widely debated here in DK after the muhammed cartoons.


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 29, 2008)

Obama is not a leader. He is yet another politician that wants to please everyone and his stated positions indicate that. Some of the posts above indicate that a politician/political party that behaves this way is to be desired. I loath elected officials who do no lead. Leadership requires fortitude and moral compass. And leadership may result in near-term decisions contrary to the majority of the populace.

That is one absolutely admirable quality of John McCain. He is a leader.


----------



## JugBR (Jul 29, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> It should not be the job of the local government (or any form of government) to decide what you can eat and what you cant eat. That is the job of the parents.




i agree with you, but would you agree with me, the situation could be even worst if the government decided people must eat just happy meals ?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 29, 2008)

JugBR said:


> i agree with you, but would you agree with me, the situation could be even worst if the government decided people must eat just happy meals ?



It would not be worse, because no government would do that...


----------



## Danielmellbin (Jul 29, 2008)

JugBR said:


> nice post daniel !
> 
> i also believe in high taxes, but the rich should pay more than poors and middle class.
> 
> ...



Thanks 

Regarding taxes: I agree - roughly speaking the incometax here is divided into 3 groups:
low income:42%
middle income:50%
high income:60%

(as mentioned this is rough numbers that do not take tax-deductables into account)

As for the dangers of statecontroled enterprize. IMO it is only dangerous when it inhibits the free markets functions. And with a free press this will not happen unnoticed.

Regarding the drugs I just wrote my opinion in the above post


----------



## Marcel (Jul 29, 2008)

freebird said:


> Great Post Marcel, I am much in agreement, the extremes are not healthy.
> 
> 
> What is your opinion on the legalization of soft drugs prostitution? Holland has both, so it would be nice to hear your thoughts.



It is a misconception if you say softdrug are legal here in the Netherlands. They are not. According to the law the possession and creation of the drugs are forbidden. In practise, possesion of small amounts are allowed by the law enforcing organisations. They creation however is not! The only drug that can legally be sold is Marihuana, in so called coffee shops. Again it's not really legal, but it is allowed. But when there's is the slightest provocation, they can be closed by the police at any time.

I think the policy is working somehow. A lot of young people like to experiment and this way can do so in a somewhat controlled manner and not having to go into criminal surroundings. Some claim that the policy causes more drugs abuse, but this is not so, as the amount of softdrugs abuse in the NL is lower than in the surrounding countries like France, UK and Germany. There are also people who claimed there would be more harddrugs abuse by former softdrugs users. This also doesn't appear to be the case.
I also firmly believe that this policy also brings in a lot of money as we get a lot of drugs tourists, not only from Germany and France, but from all over the world.

About the legal prostitution, this policy is partly working. Prostitutes can do their "job" in safe areas and also reasonably protected. Still the policy is not a total success as we still have our fair share of problems with illegal prostitution and trade in women.


----------



## JugBR (Jul 29, 2008)

freebird said:


> You're Welcome! Everything you need to know in life you learn in Kindergarten.
> 
> You can smoke Marlboro's to ruin your lungs, and drink Jack Daniels until you can't stand up - no problem. But if you want to smoke a joint in the privacy of your own home - they will come and bust down the door!



marlboro´s are from phillip morris an giant enterprise that pays many campaigns of many politicians around the world. so they buy their right to kill people with cancer every year.

if pot was produced by a giant industry, people would be smoking pot legally everywhere. but pot can be planted in everywhere, whos pothead would buy a "jamaican" marlboro i he can grow and smoke his own.

im not making apology of drugs, but talking about so big and powerfull enterprises, that can influenciate governments, politicians, paying campaings making lobbys, etc...

its a bit like the same with warfare industry whats gonna be the budget for defense when all the wars and conflicts ends and world reach a global peace ? would the executives jump from 60th floor or they want to make a lobby to start a war ?


----------



## Milos Sijacki (Jul 29, 2008)

I'm up for any party that doesn't use nationalism, the extreme one I mean, as their driving force. My people suffered and are still suffering from the few who are still living in dreams.

I'm for progress, not for isolation. I'm also against the use of force and military in order to accomplish ones goals, there is always a way to talk out of some situation.


----------



## renrich (Jul 29, 2008)

Jug, did you mean to say that you believe in high taxes? If you did mean that, I believe you are the only person I have ever heard say that unless you are saying you believe in high taxes for other people. FB ,I doubt if Bush even knows anything about the lawsuit you are speaking of. My guess is that the suit was brought because a local law conflicts with some federal statute.


----------



## ccheese (Jul 29, 2008)

Nice Siggy, Mon Ami... I like it...

Charles


----------



## drgondog (Jul 29, 2008)

freebird said:


> A noble idea TO, but could you really vote for a Democrat?
> 
> And I know that quite a few Republican leaning regulars here {who I know like!  } have stated they have "Judeo-Christian" beliefs, does that include the Christian ideas of "Morality"? Or is that a personal choice?



I'm pretty much aligned to TO as a conservative independent. While I tend to vote Republican I did vote for Perot, I would vote for Lieberman easily if the choice was Chuck Hegel - I would vote for Jesse Ventura over Repub Coleman or (???) Franken. Having said that there are so very few in the Domocratic Party in the past 30 years that have any fresh ideas about reducing the number of laws on the books, reducing the size of bureaucrats, reducing the tax burden, cutting thier ties to Lawyers, or care about lessons of personal responsibility and accountability.

This last batch of Republican Congressmen failed to pursue the ideas that Gingrich focused on and became spending, pork barrel Demlicans or Repubocrats.

We are headed for welfare state, complete crash of economy and possibly revolution unless the two parties quit looking at their checking accounds, PAC funds and bribes and start asking themselves "what Can I personally do today that improves job opportunities, enforces higher standards in Educational achievement, provide for the national defense, improves conservation and ecological balance, and roll back Nanny Government regs designed to keep one safe all his or her life - and don't really work..

I could describe myself as a Jeffersonian Democrat and make some of you look it up. His framework of ideas best describe what I believe to be valuable.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 29, 2008)

Milos Sijacki said:


> I'm up for any party that doesn't use nationalism, the extreme one I mean, as their driving force. My people suffered and are still suffering from the few who are still living in dreams.
> 
> I'm for progress, not for isolation. I'm also against the use of force and military in order to accomplish ones goals, there is always a way to talk out of some situation.



Milos - in all fairness talking to Hitler didn't work. Talking to USSR without the backing of US military did not work post WWII.

Like it or not, the only alternative to the use of force Sometimes, is to die quietly and silently.


----------



## Learstang (Jul 29, 2008)

Matt308, I just saw the Maxine Waters video that you had a link to in one of your posts. Do you really think that Maxine Waters is representative of ALL Democrats? If that's so, I guess then I can think that newly indicted Ted Stevens (R), Senator from Alaska, is representative of ALL Republicans, and all Republicans are lying crooks. Doesn't make much sense, does it. If you really think that the extremely Liberal Maxine Waters if truly representative of all or most Democrats, you are sadly mistaken. I have to admit, I wish there were more Democrats like her, but there aren't. If the Democrats and the Democratic leadership were really all such leftwing extremists, why the Hell haven't they impeached Bush? Why did they vote to continue war-funding for Iraq? Whey did the cave in on FISA? And please don't tell me it's because those are all good things - if the Democrats were all really the socialistic idealogues you think they are, these things wouldn't have happened (or in the case of impeaching Bush, they would have happened, and not withstanding Rep. Kucinich's Articles of Impeachment, that's not going to happen, because the Democratic leadership [Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, et al.] OPPOSE impeachment).


----------



## drgondog (Jul 29, 2008)

freebird said:


> Ok Renrich, you opened up this can of worms!!
> 
> 
> The Republicans dogma is "Personal Choice" and "Keep Government out of the preople's business", yet they try to tell people what they can and can't do? Hypocracy?
> ...



Nah - legalize them all, tax it, and reserve left overs for medical rehabilitation and/or social programs for illegal immigrants - none left? no benefits.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 29, 2008)

Learstang said:


> If the Democrats and the Democratic leadership were really all such leftwing extremists, why the Hell haven't they impeached Bush?


Because they have no real charges to bring against him and the most left of the democratic party knows it!!!!

You're right though, Waters doesn't represent the whole of the democratic party and thank god - at least there is some hope that the party that was at one time the true party of the middle class hasn't been totally over run by a bunch of socialists - but unfortunate too, because if I was to call someone like Waters that I would be considered a racist, etc., but when it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.......


----------



## Freebird (Jul 29, 2008)

Danielmellbin said:


> Freebird
> 
> I disagree here because I do not see an unborn infant up to the 1st trimester as being a thinking entity. But there is not much to discuss here as there is just fundamental difference in our paradigms.



Daniel I mentioned that I thought Roe was a "reasonable compromise", in case you don't know, {as it's a US law} it allows abortion in the first 4 or 5 months, but is not allowed in months 6 - 9 except in extreme cases.

The reason I say abortion is the "worst possible option", is because it can damage the woman even if done properly.



drgondog said:


> I'm pretty much aligned to TO as a conservative independent. While I tend to vote Republican I did vote for Perot, I would vote for Lieberman easily if the choice was Chuck Hegel - I would vote for Jesse Ventura over Repub Coleman or (???) Franken. Having said that there are so very few in the Domocratic Party in the past 30 years that have any fresh ideas about reducing the number of laws on the books, reducing the size of bureaucrats, reducing the tax burden, cutting thier ties to Lawyers, or care about lessons of personal responsibility and accountability.
> 
> This last batch of Republican Congressmen failed to pursue the ideas that Gingrich focused on and became spending, pork barrel Demlicans or Repubocrats.
> 
> ...





drgondog said:


> Nah - legalize them all, tax it, and reserve left overs for medical rehabilitation and/or social programs for illegal immigrants - none left? no benefits.



I' sure that we don't disagree on very much either Bill, tax the stuff start paying off the national debt.

Ren Bill, the suit against California was brought by the Federal Justice dept. I'm sure that Bush was aware. They used the "Interstate Commerce" clause to regulate it which is a ridiculous argument, there is no "Interstate Commerce" in a substance that cannot be legally sold. It is an egregious power grab on an area that is the "Jurisdiction of the States". If the citizens of California voted for it, why the heck are the Feds butting in?

Why would it be a nationwide referendum? It is quite clearly a state power.


----------



## Learstang (Jul 29, 2008)

Next time your gone. Read the rules on page 1.

Have a nice day.

Matt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 29, 2008)

Learstang said:


> I think that about does it for a start. By the way Flyboyj, 12,688 posts? That is impressive!
> 
> Peace,
> Learstang



Bla, bla, bla......

Gee Dennis - I didn't know you had an interest in aircraft!

Ya know, I'm a moderator who will actually let the left of center be heard but by the last part of your post you have just shown you're too stupid to be here so my *"12,689" *posts boot is kicking you in your ignorant pansy ass - goodbye!!!!

Evidently you didn't read the first page of this thread and BTW is ole Maxi your tail gunner???


----------



## JugBR (Jul 29, 2008)

renrich said:


> Jug, did you mean to say that you believe in high taxes? If you did mean that, I believe you are the only person I have ever heard say that unless you are saying you believe in high taxes for other people. FB ,I doubt if Bush even knows anything about the lawsuit you are speaking of. My guess is that the suit was brought because a local law conflicts with some federal statute.



reirich, what i read in internet, the democrats wants to upper the taxes and fix the health system and social protection failures and also protect the american industries. the republicans think is better lower the taxes to incentivate the grow of economy.

you cant have the both, lower taxes and fix the problems, you have to choose betwen one or another.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 29, 2008)

JugBR said:


> reirich, what i read in internet, the democrats wants to upper the taxes and fix the health system and social protection failures and also protect the american industries. the republicans think is better lower the taxes to incentivate the grow of economy.
> 
> you cant have the both, lower taxes and fix the problems, you have to choose betwen one or another.


Low taxes - if the government was properly run the "lower" taxes collected by business would more than fund what is needed - the problem there are many pork programs draining the US economy and elected officials who shouldn't be allowed to have a check book, let alone run the largest economy in the world.


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 29, 2008)

Perhaps not Jug. Ronaldus Maximus (Ronald Reagan) proved that reducing the tax burden stimulated the US economy and actually increased tax revenue. In fact his application of tax reductions are now being embraced by the Senate Leader as a possible follow on the recent Bush tax stimulus package.

I don't personally agree with how Bush went about his tax stimulus package (refunds), as I would have preferred that my taxes be reduced upfront. But it was an expedient means given the liberals complete opposition to any return of my tax money. Better not to be taxed, than to be taxed, refunded and taxed with the supposed income.


----------



## Njaco (Jul 29, 2008)

Bush can't spend one thin dime of the budget without Congress approval. Its Pelosi not Bush.


----------



## wilbur1 (Jul 29, 2008)

McCain is the best offer we got so far.... This moron oblama gets into office, i WILL not support this country ever again. I personnally do NOT want a president that will not cover his heart for the pledge of allegiance.....(oh wait i forgot they made that pledge for the U.S. gee i didnt have to do that when i swore in to service)


----------



## wilbur1 (Jul 29, 2008)

Sorry Matt308 please dont ban me for long..


----------



## toiditm (Jul 30, 2008)

wilbur1 said:


> McCain is the best offer we got so far.... This moron oblama gets into office, i WILL not support this country ever again. I personnally do NOT want a president that will not cover his heart for the pledge of allegiance.....


Vast resources of information are at your fingertips right now. Making vows before you've sought the truth can lead to untenable positions.


----------



## Freebird (Jul 30, 2008)

drgondog said:


> I could describe myself as a Jeffersonian Democrat and make some of you look it up. His framework of ideas best describe what I believe to be valuable.



A real noble thinker he was...



FLYBOYJ said:


> *Low taxes - if the government was properly run the "lower" taxes collected by business would more than fund what is needed *- the problem there are many pork programs draining the US economy and elected officials who shouldn't be allowed to have a check book, let alone run the largest economy in the world.



Amen!



Matt308 said:


> I don't personally agree with how Bush went about his tax stimulus package (refunds), as I would have preferred that my taxes be reduced upfront.



Yeah, the word "Gimmick" comes to mind.

I'm having trouble understanding how people can be in favor of high taxes...


----------



## Danielmellbin (Jul 30, 2008)

freebird said:


> I'm having trouble understanding how people can be in favor of high taxes...



A few reasons from me:

If it wasn't for high taxes I wouldn't be going to university right now. My father who has recently suffered a brainhemmorrhage would not be receiving free training and treatment. One of my sisters who has borderline syndrome (heavy form of depression) would not be receiving free treetment and housing. One of my neighbours would be evicted and homeless. These are just some quick personal examples I could come up with.


----------



## evangilder (Jul 30, 2008)

Danielmellbin said:


> A few reasons from me:
> 
> If it wasn't for high taxes I wouldn't be going to university right now. My father who has recently suffered a brainhemmorrhage would not be receiving free training and treatment. One of my sisters who has borderline syndrome (heavy form of depression) would not be receiving free treetment and housing. One of my neighbours would be evicted and homeless. These are just some quick personal examples I could come up with.



_Free _university, _free _medical care, _free _treatment, _free _housing? NONE of those things are free. They have all been paid for with your higher taxes. While you show the brighter side of that system, I am sure there are some that take advantage of the same system. If the money is handled properly, and it may be in your country, then things make sense to a point. Unfortunately, the US congress has a terrible habit of attaching all kinds of pork to the bills that make sense. This not only bloats and dilutes the bill, but wastes money of pet projects that in many cases have nothing to do with the original bill.

I am not a big fan of socialized medicine, and I have lived in both the US and Europe. I want the absolute best that money can buy, and I pay for it (a lot). My family don't have "good" doctors, they have the best ones that are available.


----------



## Danielmellbin (Jul 30, 2008)

evangilder said:


> _Free _university, _free _medical care, _free _treatment, _free _housing? NONE of those things are free. They have all been paid for with your higher taxes. While you show the brighter side of that system, I am sure there are some that take advantage of the same system. If the money is handled properly, and it may be in your country, then things make sense to a point. Unfortunately, the US congress has a terrible habit of attaching all kinds of pork to the bills that make sense. This not only bloats and dilutes the bill, but wastes money of pet projects that in many cases have nothing to do with the original bill.
> 
> I am not a big fan of socialized medicine, and I have lived in both the US and Europe. I want the absolute best that money can buy, and I pay for it (a lot). My family don't have "good" doctors, they have the best ones that are available.




Erm... the benefits of high taxes are the free things you mention. And they are free - because taxes pay for them - that was the point (education is not only free - we receive a salary from the state for studying). I goes without saying that proper handling of taxpayers money is paramount. But it seems that you beleive this could never be accomplished in the US? I can't speak for the rest of the continent - but here I choose my own doctor - "the best that money can buy". But if I where to find myself in a period of financial problems and then got seriously ill - there would be nothing to worry about. I take pride in the fact that every time I pay taxes - people less fortunate than me receive the fromerly mentioned services (and more). I am sure you take pride in making the money that asures your family and yourself topnotch treatment. There is simply a very different valuesystem in the states and here. The prejudice in Europe will many times be that Americans are just content with looking out for themselves and have no problem with watching people suffer because thats their own fault. While the American prejudice towards Europeans is that we sacrifice all the wealth accumulated by personal hardship to care for slackers - and then sit down and sing cumbaya. None of these are true - but IMO they do highlight the primary differences in values that we do have (although in a grossly simplistic way).


----------



## Njaco (Jul 30, 2008)

> And they are free - because taxes pay for them - that was the point



You'd make a good politician in New Jersey.

They are NOT free!! The rest of the tax (familar word?) paying public paid for it. Do you not understand the meaning of taxes? You take from somebody's pocket and give it to somebody who doesn't deserve it. But you'll probably say, everybody is equal and you're willing to pay taxes so everybody gets a chance, right? Its like rebates for automobiles. Nothing is FREE except death and even then they take from you.

But heres a question. How does it feel to not have accomplished anything on your own? Is it better to have worked hard in school and go to college on merit or take the ride because the gov. pays for it. How do you appreciate that housing? Did you work hard for it and cherish it or just say "thanks" as the government pays the bill. Like going to Docor Du Jour because you can't afford the better doctor because the gov, takes too much in taxes from you?

Thats the difference between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives believe you make your own without any help. Liberals have to intrude in your life because others aren't as fortunate and you have to pay for that. I'm not working for anyone but me and my family. They come first. But I'm getting sick of the gov. taking my money for affordable housing for those who couldn't care, free driver's licenses for criminals and welfare and food stamps for lazy SOBs who have babies all day and watch Jerry Springer.

Where is the pride in what you do for yourself?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 30, 2008)

Danielmellbin said:


> Erm... the benefits of high taxes are the free things you mention. And they are free - because taxes pay for them - that was the point (education is not only free - we receive a salary from the state for studying). I goes without saying that proper handling of taxpayers money is paramount. But it seems that you beleive this could never be accomplished in the US? I can't speak for the rest of the continent - but here I choose my own doctor - "the best that money can buy". But if I where to find myself in a period of financial problems and then got seriously ill - there would be nothing to worry about. I take pride in the fact that every time I pay taxes - people less fortunate than me receive the fromerly mentioned services (and more). I am sure you take pride in making the money that asures your family and yourself topnotch treatment. There is simply a very different valuesystem in the states and here. The prejudice in Europe will many times be that Americans are just content with looking out for themselves and have no problem with watching people suffer because thats their own fault. While the American prejudice towards Europeans is that we sacrifice all the wealth accumulated by personal hardship to care for slackers - and then sit down and sing cumbaya. None of these are true - but IMO they do highlight the primary differences in values that we do have (although in a grossly simplistic way).


Do you speak for your country or all of Europe, because there have been many here (this forum) from the UK who don't feel the same way.


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 30, 2008)

I just have one question. Name a single country or region, past or present, that has taxed itself into prosperity? Just one.

Gov't has its purpose. But when I witness illegal aliens purchasing food that is the the same or better grade than mine with WIC (gov't subsidized) cards in the grocery store, a sane person has to question of the tax base is being fleeced and the handouts are MUCH to prevalant.


----------



## evangilder (Jul 30, 2008)

Call me a capitalist, (I am, by the way), but when you work hard and accomplish something, the benefit is the reward, ie compensation. To give 60% of everything I earn because I busted my ass to accomplish what others have not seems more a punishment. I am charitable, and give to worthy causes. The current system in the US gives handouts out like candy. I am all for helping out your fellow man when he is down, but I am not at all for someone who is lazy or not here legally getting a free ride. There is way too much fraud and not enough checking in the system as it exists today.

One only need to take a look around in any region close to the southern borders here and see that those who enter this country illegally get better healthcare and benefits than our *veterans*! THAT isn't right.


----------



## renrich (Jul 30, 2008)

Thanks Jug, I see what your meaning is now. An answer to the question of higher taxes has been more than amply supplied. Maxine Waters may not be be typical of dimocrat congresspeople, LOL, but there are plenty like her. Sheila Jackson Lee, Boxer, Pelosi several others whose names I can't recall.


----------



## renrich (Jul 30, 2008)

Why should I, through my tax money, pay for someone else's college education? I went to college and paid for it with scholarships, jobs in summer and during school and student loans which I paid back after graduation. Crowded a four year course into six years. I suspect many more on this forum did the same. As far as Americans helping others, when the Tsunami hit Asia, Donations by American citizens were far more than from any other country. The US continues with fairly substantial foreign aid programs funded by our taxpayers and our military budget pays for our efforts around the world to help maintain peace and stability.


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 30, 2008)

Me? 4 year degree in seven years. Worked at United Parcel Service (graveyard shift) and Todd Shipyards cleaning bilges with a needlegun. Worked my backside off and graduated Magna *** Laude with a BS in Electrical Engineering. Oh. And I payed off all my school loans. Took me about 7 years and was the equivalent of a car payment a month.

So I earned it.


----------



## Danielmellbin (Jul 30, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> I just have one question. Name a single country or region, past or present, that has taxed itself into prosperity? Just one.



An outtake of the Economist Intelligence Unit's latest assesment of Danish economy:


"For two years running, the Economist Intelligence Unit has nominated Denmark as having the world’s best economic climate for foreign investors and Denmark is also among the highest placed countries in several other international comparison tables. Since 1982, 

Denmark has pursued a consistent, stability-oriented, macro-economic policy, which among other things has resulted in Denmark today being the EU country with the largest budget surplus of approx. 3.5% of GDP. In addition, unemployment is below 4% and the surplus on the balance of payments is around 2.5% of GDP. Denmark also has one of the best-developed infrastructures (taxpayed) in the world, a very high general level of education (taxpayed) and a very competent workforce (partially taxpayed). 

Denmark has a highly skilled and well-educated workforce (taxpayed) that contributes substantially to the strong productivity of Danish trade and industry. A large, wellorganised postgraduate education system (taxpayed) ensures that skills and productivity are continuously improved. Denmark also has competitive labour cost levels. Total labour costs – wages and non-wages – are considerably lower in Denmark than in most other EU countries. This is due to the employers’ low cost burden in terms of social security, labour taxes etc. (taxpayed)

Competitive labour costs and high productivity levels combine to make the Danish workforce one of the most cost-effective in Europe. This is further accentuated by the Danes’ approach to work, which is best characterised by the words efficiency, company loyalty, motivation, self-reliance and creativity." 


So - now you have heard of such a country - and it is the same for the entire scandinavian region. France and Italy are struggling with problems - none of them due to high taxes though. The UK is doing realtively well and so is Germany.



Njaco said:


> They are NOT free!! The rest of the tax (familar word?) paying public paid for it. Do you not understand the meaning of taxes? You take from somebody's pocket and give it to somebody who doesn't deserve it. But you'll probably say, everybody is equal and you're willing to pay taxes so everybody gets a chance, right? Its like rebates for automobiles. Nothing is FREE except death and even then they take from you.



Free or not free - semantics - as we all know there is no such thing as a free lunch. To the student - his university degree is free. But he repays this debt later in life in form his taxes. So in that respect it is not free as such. But then again he is not forced to repay - in that respect it is free.

It is true that the main philosophy of my political views is that: _everybody is equal and you're willing to pay taxes so everybody gets a chance, _. As stated here it might seem to be pouring hard working citizens money intoslackers pockets. However this is not true - The more people who get a chance - the more people wil succeed! And this in turn makes the country more profits in the end. Its a long process but very economical to all in the end. Trust me - if the system of high taxation didn't work I would abandon it. However - like i just said - the main philosophy that I mentioned before has the effect of benefitting everybody in the society (including the high income section). 

An example: Somebody pays taxes for somebody else's education. That person gets his "undeserved" high education. Later that person might have become a doctor and cure the original taxpayer when he falls ill - OR - he might come to work in that taxpayers business. In the case of the business worker: had he not been educated his work would have had to be imported from abroad at a much higher cost than high taxes. In the case of the doctor: If you remove the tax that person would most likely not have become a doctor and it would also remain to be seen if the taxpayer could afford the needed help had he not combined his wealth with the rest of society. My point here is that although the main philosophy might seem too collective for your liking. The benefits of the system are highly personal - not only collective.

Size also comes into question. Having as big a population as the US does you can rest assured that there will always be enough educated people to "take care of things" (at some level anyway). Small countries do not have this luxury - we can only survive due to a high level of general education and as little waste as possible. High taxation has been proved to offer the least ammount of waste compared to final productivity.



Njaco said:


> But heres a question. How does it feel to not have accomplished anything on your own? Is it better to have worked hard in school and go to college on merit or take the ride because the gov. pays for it. How do you appreciate that housing? Did you work hard for it and cherish it or just say "thanks" as the government pays the bill. Like going to Docor Du Jour because you can't afford the better doctor because the gov, takes too much in taxes from you?



Without my own hard work I wouldn't become anything - so it feels great. My education might be payed for but those books don't read themselves and the brainactivity to process them and form them into knowledge isn't without sacrifice or hard work. And if people want a good TV package or new nice clothes etc.. - then they have to work while studying - student salaries only cover basic needs. But the ammount of work done while studying is not removing too much focus or energy from the studies themselves. 

As for the doctors - this doesn't stand up to scrutiny either: Here you choose your own doctor and the standards for health care are amongst the highest in the world. Furthermore the presence of world-class universities (taxpayed) working at the forefront of technological development contributes to Denmark’s strong position within medical technology. Not only is technology at the forefront, the Danish educational system aims at teaching students (taxpayed) to work together, resulting in efficient teamwork and innovative research and products. 
During the last few years, the importance of producing graduates with the right profile for the medical technology industry has led to the creation of a number of educations combining medicine with technology (taxpayed). 




evangilder said:


> Call me a capitalist, (I am, by the way), but when you work hard and accomplish something, the benefit is the reward, ie compensation. To give 60% of everything I earn because I busted my ass to accomplish what others have not seems more a punishment. I am charitable, and give to worthy causes. The current system in the US gives handouts out like candy. I am all for helping out your fellow man when he is down, but I am not at all for someone who is lazy or not here legally getting a free ride. There is way too much fraud and not enough checking in the system as it exists today.
> 
> One only need to take a look around in any region close to the southern borders here and see that those who enter this country illegally get better healthcare and benefits than our *veterans*! THAT isn't right.



Me too capitalist  
If people didn't get value for their taxes they wouldn't pay them or a political party that wants to abolish the welfarestate would emerge. However this doesn't happen - and there can be only one reason: The system works and even the rich people like it. And for those of you that haven't been here: there are rich people that drive around in ferraris and poor people that hobble along in 1978 vintage deathtrapmobiles. But practically speaking there aren't any people suffering from poverty or heritage (ie. poor parents). 

However the US system may be filled with ineffectivness you speak of - naturally you wouldn't want more of that. But - it doesn't mean that it cannot work - simply that it isn't working in its current form. (Not trying to tell you to convert - hope you understand what I mean).



renrich said:


> Why should I, through my tax money, pay for someone else's college education? I went to college and paid for it with scholarships, jobs in summer and during school and student loans which I paid back after graduation. Crowded a four year course into six years. I suspect many more on this forum did the same. As far as Americans helping others, when the Tsunami hit Asia, Donations by American citizens were far more than from any other country. The US continues with fairly substantial foreign aid programs funded by our taxpayers and our military budget pays for our efforts around the world to help maintain peace and stability.



Because your society will benefit from it in the end. If I can make life easier for comming generations by working my arse off I will do so - point being: Just because I had to work hard it doesn't mean that I think the next generation should have it just as hard as I did. I do not curse current highschool students for getting larger sallaries than I did - I think its a good thing. As for foreign aid: I don't see the relevance in this discussion? Foreign aid's ammount of the BNP in DK: 0,850% - same number for US: 0,150%. I do not wish to make this into a pissing constest over who does most for the world. We all do alot - and nobody should ever dare to underestimate any country's contribution to the poor areas of the world. But I just want to remind you good folks over the sea that you aren't the only ones helping - and being the largest econmy in the world your total ammounts will naturally be higher than that of other countries.

Good god this has become half a book - sorry - but alot of comments to answer


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 30, 2008)

Dan all very interesting but I think your low population and work ethic makes your system successful - the only flaw I see (and I know its been mentioned) is supporting your population as it ages.

But what about those who don't want to contribute, who don't want to better themselves and who want to take their education stipend and just party all day, what is done with them?


----------



## Njaco (Jul 30, 2008)

> Size also comes into question.



And that may be the crux of the matter. While I have no clue how things work in Denmark, its success may be attributed to the population size and to a cultural acceptance that the government will do for you as you pay the government. That wasn't what this country was founded on. It was individualistic self help and work that rose oneself out of poverty and upward.



> As stated here it might seem to be pouring hard working citizens money into slackers pockets. However this is not true - The more people who get a chance - the more people wil succeed!



While that may be the working philosophy in the EU, it doesn't work here. My job forces me into contact with numerous people and how they live. I don't think there are enough numerals to show how many times I've been in contact with someone - on welfare, on food stamps, college classes paid for, on WIC, on unemployment - who sit around all day with plasma TVs and $$$ of "bling" on their body - colored hair and nails, clothes, etc. And they don't work. Don't lift a finger. But again that may be the difference between the US and EU - a society that accepts the government along with its taxes to better oneself. We don't expect the government to do it for us, we do it ourselves. Much more satisfying IMHO.


----------



## Danielmellbin (Jul 30, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Dan all very interesting but I think your low population and work ethic makes your system successful - the only flaw I see (and I know its been mentioned) is supporting your population as it ages.
> 
> But what about those who don't want to contribute, who don't want to better themselves and who want to take their education stipend and just party all day, what is done with them?



Yes - the sheer size of the state authoryties needed to support such a system in say - the US - is truly mindboggling. The following is just a theoretical thought: Such a system would have to be implemented by federal government and then maintained and evolved under local government to avoid a beaurocratical nightmare. But the federal government would still need to be involved to maintain relative equality between the states. As I said this is just "out of the blue" thinking - not meant as a "this is how it should be done".

You are right that the question of demographics is a big challenge to the welfare states. So far the challenge has been met by various programs. Increased retirementage, slighty lowered welfare payments and various incetives to make people retire later.

Those who don't want to contribute is another problem that emerges from time to time in various sectors. However it has never caused anything close to critical situations. Bluntly put the biggest strain on the welfare state stems from immigrants. They have not been raised in the system and as such have not gotten the same values injected from childhood. Also they do not take pride in the society - understandable in many cases. This is an evil spiral that leads to more rascism that in turn leads to less pride among the immigrants and so on... There has been a major "intregation" effort made by the state to remedy this in the latest years. It has improved the situation but still requires work from both immigrants and "natives" alike.

However the leaches and loopholes that exist are exposed and closed day by day. IE: Recipients of unemployment welfare are registered in a "jobdatabase" accessible by most businesses. These people then loose their welfare if they turn down a job. Students have a limited ammount of time complete their studies and thus claim their student sallaries - if they exceed this time without proper reasons they have to pay for the rest of the education by themselves. There are no free rides - atleast not any that remain open for long.


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 30, 2008)

Danielmellbin said:


> So - now you have heard of such a country - and it is the same for the entire scandinavian region.



Alas you have only made a partial attemt to answere the spirit of the comment. If some taxation is good, and lots of taxation like that in Scandanavia is better, then even further taxation must be even better for the economy. And surely you don't believe that.


----------



## Njaco (Jul 30, 2008)

Wouldn't that mean that the State would provide everything, Comrade?


----------



## Danielmellbin (Jul 30, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> Alas you have only made a partial attemt to answere the spirit of the comment. If some taxation is good, and lots of taxation like that in Scandanavia is better, then even further taxation must be even better for the economy. And surely you don't believe that.



Nah - "bigger is better is" is the US philosophy   


But seriously: Its not a matter of taxation as such. Its researching/learning which ammount of taxation provides the biggest ammount of welfare without undermining personal economic gains or other natural free market functions.

Higher taxation than that in my country would be tantamount to colectivization - bad! - everybody agrees on that here.


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 30, 2008)

In the US, we call it wealth redistribution.


----------



## Danielmellbin (Jul 30, 2008)

Njaco said:


> And that may be the crux of the matter. While I have no clue how things work in Denmark, its success may be attributed to the population size and to a cultural acceptance that the government will do for you as you pay the government. That wasn't what this country was founded on. It was individualistic self help and work that rose oneself out of poverty and upward.
> 
> 
> 
> While that may be the working philosophy in the EU, it doesn't work here. My job forces me into contact with numerous people and how they live. I don't think there are enough numerals to show how many times I've been in contact with someone - on welfare, on food stamps, college classes paid for, on WIC, on unemployment - who sit around all day with plasma TVs and $$$ of "bling" on their body - colored hair and nails, clothes, etc. And they don't work. Don't lift a finger. But again that may be the difference between the US and EU - a society that accepts the government along with its taxes to better oneself. We don't expect the government to do it for us, we do it ourselves. Much more satisfying IMHO.



Yes the welfare state is at odds with some of the principal and founding ideas in the US. But I think that those founding ideas are at odds with the realties of modern societies (the need for education and other high cost services).

That state of affairs you mention is truly sad. But as I see it there are only two solutions:

1.More government to root out the leaches - this will cost more (taxes) at first. But less as effectiveness and results are gained over time.

2.Cancel welfareprograms and thus be able to lower taxes (increasing the private investment _potential_) and eliminate leaches. However this will also hit those truly in need - and cause a wave of economic missery and homelessness.

Agree? - disagree?


----------



## Danielmellbin (Jul 30, 2008)

Njaco said:


> Wouldn't that mean that the State would provide everything, Comrade?



Da! (reaches out for a sip of the stolichnaya while reading mao's little red)

 

Nah seriously: Further taxation here would be leading to socialism in its true form - and thats neither good nor do-able. Proven over and over again by history.


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 30, 2008)

Danielmellbin said:


> Agree? - disagree?




I think that you answered your own question above. Nobody is advocating zero taxes. Rather, as you noted there is a line of demarcation that must be assessed based upon gov't role in a free citizens life. You just draw that line WAAAAY above where I would.


----------



## renrich (Jul 30, 2008)

Fine discussion, I must say. Matt, you are a great example of what makes this country great. My deal was working in the oil patch in the summer, worked delivering mail during the Christmas holidays and had a job in the intramural sports dept of SMU paying 50 dollars per month. Only put in about 20 hours per week. Owed about two or three thousand in 59 when I graduated. Took me several years at $17.50/ month to pay it back. Only reason I mentioned foreign aid and private donations was to show that people in the US and our government care about other people, just like people in Denmark do. Once again, I suspect that a major difference between us is size and the fact that Denmark has a much more homogeneous population than we do. Probably the literacy rate is higher there also. If Denmark had the demographic situation we have and one day you may experience that, the statistics on the economy would look much different. Also we do support the large military budget which Denmark does not. I doubt that Denmark had too much to do with keeping the USSR from gobbling up the rest of Europe during the Cold War or contributed much during the Berlin Airlift or had many troops in Korea.


----------



## Njaco (Jul 30, 2008)

> Agree? - disagree?



I agree with your two choices but I also agree with Matts response. I don't think I would mind taxes so much if I could see some kind of successful return. That doesn't happen here in the US. Every social entitlement program has failed.

Ren, I may be the worse off, who knows. HS dropout at 17, went back to get my GED and passed (with no studying - kinda proud of that) then worked my way through kennels and such to the government job now. Past 20 years worked hard to become a vice-pres of our State association. Also became heavily involved with my local union (largest in the state for state workers) to the point of being a senior shop steward and on the union PAC. Been to the Police Academy twice where for a time I taught cadets.

While I wish some things were different, I choose my own road. My main complaint is while I work hard at what I have - and it really ain't much - I see others who do far less have far more, all thanks to entitlement programs. Its an itch I just can't scratch.


----------



## renrich (Jul 30, 2008)

Njaco, my hats off to you. College degrees often don't mean Jack. I never used mine as it was BS in geology and in 59, the oil industry was not hiring because we had more production in the US than we could use. How times have changed. My father had a GED and started off sweeping out the depot and on a section gang for the railroad. Worked his way up to Passenger Traffic Manager, head of passenger service. Only worked for the RR 52 years. Opportunity abounds in this country to get ahead. If I was a little younger I would go out and get a job roughnecking in this oil and gas boom we have in western Colorado. There are rigs everywhere and those are high paying jobs. All I want is get the government out of the way, keep taxes low and the devil take the hindmost.


----------



## Njaco (Jul 30, 2008)

Agreed. And the best part of it all, was that somehow, someway, I made my father proud. That keeps me going.

But that was what I meant when Daniel was posting about the situation in Denmark and elsewhere. Its a different mindset when it comes to the individual citizen here in the US. And some don't give a rats arse what they do with themselves as long as the governent babysits them and they can whine about it.


----------



## renrich (Jul 30, 2008)

We have a situation here and some would call it racial and maybe so but it demonstrates what we are talking about. The Southern Utes are very wealthy because their tribal lands have a bunch of oil and gas deposits. Each Ute when becoming 18 gets a big check from the tribal council and a little later they get a yearly check that is enough to live on frugally. Many of them just choose to sit around as a result. Another result is that the council bought up a bunch of land near here, donated enough for a hospital and is trying to do a 500 acre residential and commercial development around the hospital. Since they have no experience doing real estate they have the wrong residential product at the wrong price point and the retail and commercial doesn't work because everyone in the area goes into Durango to shop at Walmart. A fool and his money are soon parted. They had a good opportunity and fumbled the ball because the money came too easily to them.


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 30, 2008)

Same here in Washington State, The Puyallup tribe developed HUGE gambling casinos (only native americans are allowed to do so) and the basis for the approval for gambling was all the revenue generated for the tribe members. Well about 8 years ago, I read that amounted to about $80k per tribal member household. Not bad for doing nothing.

You drive though this area and it is the biggest pig sty you have ever seen in your life. Dilapidated cars, boats, trailers, fishing equipment, trash, condemned structures, tires... you name it strewn everywhere.


----------



## renrich (Jul 30, 2008)

Yep, same here and a brand new high end casino in Ignacio called Sky Ute and the residential areas in Ignacio pretty trsahy.


----------



## mkloby (Jul 30, 2008)

renrich said:


> We have a situation here and some would call it racial and maybe so but it demonstrates what we are talking about. The Southern Utes are very wealthy because their tribal lands have a bunch of oil and gas deposits. Each Ute when becoming 18 gets a big check from the tribal council and a little later they get a yearly check that is enough to live on frugally. Many of them just choose to sit around as a result. Another result is that the council bought up a bunch of land near here, donated enough for a hospital and is trying to do a 500 acre residential and commercial development around the hospital. Since they have no experience doing real estate they have the wrong residential product at the wrong price point and the retail and commercial doesn't work because everyone in the area goes into Durango to shop at Walmart. A fool and his money are soon parted. They had a good opportunity and fumbled the ball because the money came too easily to them.



Doesn't that seem to be all too common when money is not earned, but given? I recently read that approximately 60% of lotto winners later declare bankruptcy... I do not know what size winnings or anything else was included in the data.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Jul 30, 2008)

mkloby said:


> Doesn't that seem to be all too common when money is not earned, but given? I recently read that approximately 60% of lotto winners later declare bankruptcy... I do not know what size winnings or anything else was included in the data.



Right! Many lotto winners go belly up. Tells you something doesn't it. 

BTW, Nice to have you back on the forum.  

TO


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 30, 2008)

mkloby said:


> Doesn't that seem to be all too common when money is not earned, but given? I recently read that approximately 60% of lotto winners later declare bankruptcy... I do not know what size winnings or anything else was included in the data.


I think its a matter of personal financial responsibility. We tend to live out of our means, fiance our recreation and fail to worry about the long term consequences. In the 80s this was the norm - I spent money like a drunken sailor figuring that my income will be guaranteed and although I was carrying a debt, I'd have many years to pay it off - boy was that stupid!

In the past 5 years I've learned - thanks to a steady job and a very sharp wife, we are doing well, no debt except our home and even though it's worth about $5K less than what we paid for it, I still have equity.

Not to say I'm a raging financial genius but being a little thrifty and refusing to fiance recreation seems to be the answer that worked for me.


----------



## renrich (Jul 30, 2008)

Matt, good to hear from you. I do think many lottery winners have problems. Course, the controller at a ski resort where I worked won about 6M and he resigned, moved to Tucson and is happily living off his investments. I was in Farmington NM playing golf around a month ago on a Friday and one of those tilt rotor dinguses flew over us about 5 times. Wasn't you was it?


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 30, 2008)

renrich said:


> Njaco, my hats off to you. College degrees often don't mean Jack. .


but they do in todays world


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 30, 2008)

I'll trust that "dingus" was the Webster dictionary version and NOT the Urban Dictionary version.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 30, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> but they do in todays world


You really think so? Maybe in southern Ontario but not in parts of the US - I would also guess there are plenty degreed people in Montreal waiting tables.


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 30, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> but they do in todays world



College degrees have no bearing on intelligence. Nor are they anything more than a bellwether measure of potential for success. College degrees (if they are worth their salt):

1) Provide advanced education ON HOW TO TEACH YOURSELF via discipline.

2) Provide the graduate a foot in the door in higher paying jobs.

After that. All gloves are off. Its up to the certificate recipient. I have personally fired an individual with a doctorate degree in the engineering sciences for utter lack of performance. And on the contrary, I have met more than one individual who was magnitudes my intellectual superior and they too did not have a college degree.

Hell, Einstein was identified as below average intelligence when he was in early years of school.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Jul 30, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> College degrees have no bearing on intelligence.



Absolutely true!

They open doors, that's about it. Look at all the liberal college professors. Most of them have doctorates and they have as much intelligence and sense as a box of rocks.

TO


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 30, 2008)

Yep


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 30, 2008)

I'm the #2 guy on my program (45 workers on the program) - although I have all types of flying ratings I have no degree and out paced many who have in my career field, mainly because I have the vocational background to enable me to execute my job in a management function.


----------



## JugBR (Jul 30, 2008)

give the fish will stops the hungry for now, but should create a dependency.

teach to fishing will kill the hungry and also give independency.

but in some cases is needed gives the fish first to then, teach how to fishing. its hard to learn with empty stomach sometimes, when you dont eat a fish for weeks... 

but you have to teach how to fishing, because if you dont some others could teach how to steal a fish. 

only jesus had the power to multiply the fish. but theres a lot of fake-messiah around the border of stream, promissing the same, in exchange for each one fish. thats when we discover, the fish are us !


----------



## Freebird (Jul 30, 2008)

Njaco said:


> My job forces me into contact with numerous people and how they live. I don't think there are enough numerals to show how many times I've been in contact with someone - on welfare, on food stamps, college classes paid for, on WIC, on unemployment - who sit around all day with plasma TVs and $$$ of "bling" on their body - colored hair and nails, clothes, etc. And they don't work. Don't lift a finger.





renrich said:


> Once again, I suspect that a major difference between us is size and the fact that *Denmark has a much more homogeneous population than we do.* Probably the literacy rate is higher there also. If Denmark had the demographic situation we have and one day you may experience that, the statistics on the economy would look much different.





renrich said:


> We have a situation here and some would call it racial and maybe so but it demonstrates what we are talking about.



Ren, you seem to be dancing around the question, but what what you seem to getting at is that there is a large number of people in the black native communities that think it is perfectly fine to be living off of welfare, foodstamps handouts. Why is that do you think? I know the Reverend's Jesse Wright will tell you that is because of slavery racism, but compare their history to that of the Asians, it's not that different, yet two totally different outcomes. Going back 100 years, the Chinese East Indians suffered discrimination racism on the west coast, not unlike the African Americans. Yet today the Asians are over-represented in our universities, many have their own small businesses, and have lower rates than average for drug addiction, prison population, dropouts, welfare, etc.

Why is that? Social? Racial? Community?


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 30, 2008)

Social and community. What it is NOT is govt. I live in a mostly white community and the Koreans outclass the white educational performance every year. Why? More govt handouts? More welfare for the asian community? Nope. Harder work, conservative values and high expectations amongst their peers. Plain and simple.


----------



## JugBR (Jul 30, 2008)

culture and education is also the answer. indians and chineses, are very old civilization, theres some traditional values they brough to new world.

the african slavery was kind of diferent of the slavery and exploration of asians. its a very complex issue, and also very ancient. 

but the answer for every social problems is education, ever. education is always the key.


----------



## JugBR (Jul 30, 2008)

indians, chinese, japanese, etc... all ancient civilizations.


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 30, 2008)

All civilizations are ancient Jug. An unless you subscribe to genetic inferiority, I do not understand your position. Slavery has occurred since the day man attempted to domesticate animals. Doesn't make slavery right, but a victim mentality is not a racially inherent disposition.

Social and community. Social and community.

And with that, an individual has no excuse not to rise above it. I know. I'm a redneck by descent.


----------



## Njaco (Jul 30, 2008)

> give the fish will stops the hungry for now, but should create a dependency.
> 
> teach to fishing will kill the hungry and also give independency.



Jug, that is true. As for social problems, I don't think education is the answer: its a strong family base and a strong moral belief, whether it be Christian, Jewish or Hindu or whatever. Its the strong person within that can resist the problems from without.

Free, I wasn't posting as any particular race but I will say the majority are black amd white. Most asians and indians (from India) are hard workers and family-oriented. Its not in them to ask for help.


----------



## Freebird (Jul 30, 2008)

Njaco said:


> Free, I wasn't posting as any particular race but I will say the majority are black amd white. Most asians and indians (from India) are hard workers and family-oriented. Its not in them to ask for help.



Also I think it has to do with racial community pride. For some people living off of government handouts is cool because you are "beating the system", while for others in the same situation it is deeply embarrassing, something that you get out of ASAP


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 30, 2008)

I best indicate my politics
In Canada I am right wing , and I wholeheartly support free health care and giving those challenged by physical and mental difficulties a reasonable lifestyle . However those that are capable of work that opt not to should be forced to work for their assistance in some sort of work for money project. I believe stongly in term limits and a ban from lobbying after leaving public office. If I don't agree with any of the people available on the ballot I will spoil it or vote for a fringe party as a protest vote . I dislike any suggestion of quotas or make up for past abuses in hiring .
The native population should get off there collective asses and work I'm sorry you lost your lands so long ago but you didn't even have the wheel so if not the europeans it would have been some one else take the land .


----------



## Njaco (Jul 30, 2008)

Can't argue with much there Pb. But the free health care I don't see as working in the US. Besides the GI bill, I know of no government social entitlement program that has ever worked.


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 30, 2008)

Njaco said:


> Can't argue with much there Pb. But the free health care I don't see as working in the US. Besides the GI bill, I know of no government social entitlement program that has ever worked.


I'll let you know how it works soon as I went the DR today about a hernia thing go to see surgeon next week


----------



## ccheese (Jul 30, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> College degrees have no bearing on intelligence.



Thank you, Matt.
I promised I'd stay out of this [political] discussion, but here I'm going to
make a statement. I quit school in the 7th grade. Made the Navy a career,
and retired. Started working in the automotive trade for $125.00 a week. Now
I am the Warranty Administrator for a Mazda dealership. I'm a salary person,
so I get paid if I take a day off or call in sick. My yearly salary is just under
$40K. I do not have a high school education [do have a GED], and no college.
It's been hard work all my life. But, the hard work has paid off.

Charles


----------



## JugBR (Jul 30, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> All civilizations are ancient Jug. An unless you subscribe to genetic inferiority, I do not understand your position. Slavery has occurred since the day man attempted to domesticate animals. Doesn't make slavery right, but a victim mentality is not a racially inherent disposition.
> 
> Social and community. Social and community.
> 
> And with that, an individual has no excuse not to rise above it. I know. I'm a redneck by descent.



im also descendent of rednecks, but you didnt understood my point.

well genetic inferiority is BS.

forget the "ancient civ" for one moment i explain you later.

the kind of slavery system used to bring black people from africa to americas, was very violent, not just physical but also psychological and cultural ways. the goal was make and human being aware of his culture and witouth any kind of hope to better his life. 

when slavery comes over, the former slaves families was just dropped from the farms and had not too much oportunities to get a average job or even any knowloge or literacy. there wasnt any kind of program to re-introduce this people into a soceiety. 

so the dificulties that black people finds to better their lifes and survive, was much more harder than the asians and european imigrants find to better their lifes in new world.

there was harder to get education, to get a nice job, to put their kids in a college, to break the racist steriotypes, etc...

but i believe none or quite few black people wants to get any kind of advantage to the white people do compensate the historical issues. just equal oportunities. if you put a school in harlen or any other poor area, wheres poor blacks, spanics or white people lives, so good than a school in a middle class area. youll see the diference. also if you put a nice school in a brazilian favela, youll see the great diference that it does.

education is everything.

the asians, by its ancient culture, gives a great value to education. thats why i believe the asian students have better notes. because their parents teach them discipline and the value of education pretty earlier.

thats a task of the state, ensure the best education and equal oportunities for each people of country, no matter skin color, religion or anything. usa have some of the best universities in the world, some of those have more nobel prizes than many developed nations together, but, isnt there a lack of good public schools in poor regions of the big cities, what makes the gangs and drug dealers brings crime and violence ?


----------



## Njaco (Jul 30, 2008)

Jug check out the investment returns and the capital that the top Ivy league colleges make and then check how much they charge to attend. Its a disgrace.

Please don't bring slavery into this. Its an old issue that has been dealt with. Have you heard of the Chinese during the 1800s? They were considered even lower humans than blacks. How about the Irish in the mid 1800s? same thing. Parts of the US were founded by peoples trying to get away from persecution in another country. Do you hear anyone asking for compensation from England or Spain or any other country?

Education is important. But you proved my point with this...


> thats why i believe the asian students have better notes. because their parents teach them discipline and the value of education pretty earlier.


Strong family values. 

But about that education. Do you know about affirmative action? Or College Quotas? You can't just get into many colleges on merit anymore. It depends on your skin color, religion and sex.


----------



## evangilder (Jul 31, 2008)

I am often reminded of the old saying "The world is full of educated derelicts". I have known highly educated people that couldn't apply that knowledge as well as people that had no college whatsoever that were real sharp. A college degree may help you get a foot in the door, depending on your vocation, but the rest is still up to the individual.


----------



## Freebird (Jul 31, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> I best indicate my politics
> In Canada I am right wing , and I wholeheartly support free health care and giving those challenged by physical and mental difficulties a reasonable lifestyle . However those that are capable of work that opt not to should be forced to work for their assistance in some sort of work for money project. I believe stongly in term limits and a ban from lobbying after leaving public office. If I don't agree with any of the people available on the ballot I will spoil it or vote for a fringe party as a protest vote . I dislike any suggestion of quotas or make up for past abuses in hiring .
> The native population should get off there collective asses and work I'm sorry you lost your lands so long ago but you didn't even have the wheel so if not the europeans it would have been some one else take the land .



Good post from Canada eh?    I agree with all you have posted except perhaps for the term limits, I think sometimes an old experienced fool is better than a naive new fool...  

Interesting how a right-winger in Canada can be accused of being a "lefty" in the US.   {been there}  



Njaco said:


> Can't argue with much there Pb. But the free health care I don't see as working in the US. Besides the GI bill, I know of no government social entitlement program that has ever worked.



*Wake up smell the coffee Njaco, you already HAVE free health care,* just a very disorganized, inefficient wasteful one. The elderly the poor are covered under medicare/medicade. Those workers illegals who don't have health care just use the emergency room as their health care provider. The hospital cannot refuse emergency care, and can't collect the bill if the person has no money or is a Mexican citizen - guess who ends up covering the cost? So a poor/undocumented person can't take his kid in to treat an inflamed appendix, he has to wait until it ruptures so that he can call an ambulance to take the screaming kid to the hospital. 



evangilder said:


> I want the absolute best that money can buy, and I pay for it (a lot). My family don't have "good" doctors, they have the best ones that are available.



*The best system would be a mix of Canada's the USA's system*, where everyone could use the basic system, or, as Eric chooses, to pay for the best care. Same as schools, send your kid to the public school or pay for the best private, if you wish. The big problem that we have in Canada is that the far left up here {the N.D.P.} have blocked the option of allowing people who can afford it to pay for private care, which has forced them {and the best doctors} into the US where they can legally be treated. *You can pay to take you cat to the best vet, but not your kid.*  

*On the other hand, I have heard too many horror stories from the US*, if an ordinary working guy is among the 4 or 5% of people with a kid or family member who has a severe disability, a traumatic accident, etc, they suddenly find that their company plan or HMO has just decided that the treatment isn't covered. Ends up wiping out his life savings. *Like losing in the lottery from hell.*

Best system IMO, everyone {legally in the country!} would pay a small amount yearly get basic coverage, if you want to pay for premium coverage, you can choose to pay for it.


----------



## Aussie1001 (Jul 31, 2008)

What you can't pay for a doctor, thats retarded mate. 
Personally i think there should be a limit on how much lawyers earn.
And taxes Australia is one of the most taxed nations in the world.
Goverment Stamp Tax (is it Stamp i'm not sure might be something else) or G.S.T as it it usually known by affects nearly everything we buy. In other words i buy a loaf of bread for 3 bucks two bucks 80 goes to the shop and the goverment gets the other 20 cents.
and Stamp duty don't even get me started on that..


----------



## Njaco (Jul 31, 2008)

> Wake up smell the coffee Njaco, you already HAVE free health care,



Yeah, kinda forgot about that one. But like I said, even that is a failure.


----------



## renrich (Jul 31, 2008)

The argument that because we allegedly already have socialised medicine in the form of our locally funded hospitals, advanced mainly by someone who is not even a US citizen, does not hold water with me. It is like saying,"if rape is inevitable, lie back and enjoy it." A lot of that info about illegals crowding our public hospitals is anecdotal and the problems of our public hospitals can and should be handled on a local basis. Surely it is true that the indigent sometimes crowd our hospital emergency rooms but they have to wait an inordinate amount of time which discourages them from going for minor ailments. To create a gigantic, money hungry federal program such as national health care to replace our current system is idiocy. Remember also that all this squalling about the 47M uninsured(where does that number come from, how do they know) is mainly political BS. The dimocrats think that they can garner votes from people who get hysterical about all these people who are dying for lack of health care. The fact is that rich folks, regardless of the system, can always get better health care than the rest of us. "The big uns are always going to eat the little uns." If illegals are crowding our hospitals, the solution is to deal with illegal immigration, not national health care.


----------



## Danielmellbin (Jul 31, 2008)

JugBR said:


> im also descendent of rednecks, but you didnt understood my point.
> 
> well genetic inferiority is BS.
> 
> ...



Good post - spot on for the most part Jug.


----------



## Freebird (Jul 31, 2008)

Aussie1001 said:


> What you can't pay for a doctor, *thats retarded* mate.



Yep, that would be my analysis too.



Aussie1001 said:


> Goverment Stamp Tax (is it Stamp i'm not sure might be something else) or G.S.T as it it usually known by



Probably *G*oods *S*ervices *T*ax, that's what we have here in Canada.



renrich said:


> The argument that because we allegedly already have socialised medicine in the form of our locally funded hospitals, advanced mainly by someone who is not even a US citizen,



Sorry??? I've lived worked in the USA {legally I might add}, and used medical care in the US, not to mention I know dozens if not hundreds of US residents who I've worked with {and my church is in Wash. state} so I have a fairly good idea what I'm talking about. 

I think the point was also made by Eric as well, who I suspect is probably a US citizen. The fact that the illegal aliens get health care while the working poor often don't makes even less sense.



evangilder said:


> The current system in the US gives handouts out like candy. I am all for helping out your fellow man when he is down, but I am not at all for someone who is lazy or not here legally getting a free ride.
> One only need to take a look around in any region close to the southern borders here and see that those who enter this country illegally get better healthcare and benefits than our *veterans*! THAT isn't right.





renrich said:


> A lot of that info about illegals crowding our public hospitals is anecdotal



If you think the problem of Illegals is just "anecdotal" you should visit the border areas of Texas where it is a huge problem, not just for hospitals, but schools and other public sevices as well. Eric probably sees a similar problem in California too.



renrich said:


> the problems of our public hospitals can and should be handled on a local basis.



"Handled on a local basis" just means that you are dumping the financial burden on the local hospital, hardly a good solution. The cost is passed on to paying citizens by higher rates, or else it degrades the quality of health care.

"Handled on a local basis" also means that if a hospital in a border region cannot survive financially because of the overload of illegals, and closes it's doors. Is that a solution?

So if you are a millionaire you have no problems, your doctor comes to you. If you are an average working guy you will have to pay more your family gets lesser care because the local hospital that YOU PAY FOR is *legally mandated to give care to illegals*



renrich said:


> Surely it is true that the indigent sometimes crowd our hospital emergency rooms but they have to wait an inordinate amount of time which discourages them from going for minor ailments.



*Yes, and it also means that the ordinary guy has to wait for hours for his care,* as emergency wait times are not determined by coverage status. So if Njaco takes his kid in with a busted finger and 5 illegals are then wheeled in with emergencies, - guess what - Njaco's kid is now 6th in line.

{Sorry to use you as an example Njaco, I hope your kid does not bust a finger!  }



renrich said:


> To create a gigantic, money hungry federal program such as national health care to replace our current system is idiocy.



I don't know, it would seem to make sense to have a program where the working poor can get coverage for a reasonable price, which is exactly what we have in Canada



renrich said:


> If illegals are crowding our hospitals, the solution is to deal with illegal immigration.



That would be a good place to start.


----------



## Matt308 (Aug 1, 2008)

Did I just hear Barack say that he wants to take the oil companies profits and make these private companies provide monetary handouts to US citizens? Did I hear that right!?! And huge audiences were applauding for Godsake.

Is that what happened in Venezuela, Iran, etc? What is happening here!!


----------



## Matt308 (Aug 1, 2008)

Found an ad where he supports "Windfall profit penalties".

Huh? Isn't that liberalspeak for taking your money if you are deemed too profitable. Who makes that decision? Obama?


----------



## Bucksnort101 (Aug 1, 2008)

Yes Matt, seems he wants to "give" the Citizens of the US another Economic Stimulus check paid for by the Oil Companies profits. Think kind of talk frightens me to no end. No matter what you think of the large Oil Companies (remember that the US Government makes huge monitary gains from taxes imposed on Oil Companies) the idea of a Government agengy making a determination of what are excessive profits should scare anyone in a free society.
Who is going to make the determination and how much is excessive? Once this would be established who would be next?
John McCain also supports Windfall Profit taxes,maybe not on the same level as Mr.Obamo but it still is a scary concept. Remember Jimmy Carter? He had the many of the same ideas as Mr. Obama does when it comes to dealing with Energy and look where we were in the late 70's.


----------



## Njaco (Aug 1, 2008)

Take from business and redistribute to the rest. Everybody is equal, everybody gets no more, no less.

What a novel idea. Wonder why no goverment decided to try that before, huh?

Do the liberal members now understand why the rest of us are scared if he makes prez?


----------



## renrich (Aug 1, 2008)

Yep, take more taxes away from those nasty oil companies. The problem is that those companies are us! I really don't think that the dimocrat's idea of taxing the oils more is going to gain them any points with the majority of the public. On the subject of national health care again here are some interesting questions I never hear the answers to. The estimate is that 10M to 20M illegals are in the country. Are they in the 47M who supposedly are uninsured? Another question is: Since 1970 one person households have increased from 17% of the total to 27%. The vast majority of these single person households are GenXers. These are upwardly mobil relatively affluent young people many of whom, as I did when I was that age, do not feel they need med insurance. Some of that 27% are elderly people who live alone. The population of the US is around 300M. The average household size is 2.57 people. 300M divided by 2.57 yields 116.7M households. If 27% are one person either GenX or elderly that is around 31.5M people. I wonder how many of those GenXers are among the alleged 47M uninsured. My bet is that a lot of them are.


----------



## Matt308 (Aug 1, 2008)

Renrich those are all good questions and for sure a good post. I think all of us (at least those who worked) when we were young would admit that health insurance ranked right below "enough salsa in the fridge". And just as I am continually pointed out (  ), the percentages of non-insured are subject to the details.


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 1, 2008)

this should be a reasonable set of stats for health coverage 
N C H S - FASTATS - Health Insurance
the fact remains many countries have a longer life span and lower child mortality rates then the US and that should be embarassing unless its the peoples fault that they didn't plan for it.


----------



## Matt308 (Aug 1, 2008)

Irrespective, Pb, it IS embarrassing.  And I only blame the voters of the US. For they have the power and choose to sit on their laurels.


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 1, 2008)

I really don't give a crap about older people but at least every kid should be given the option of good health irrespective of there families lot in life 
I don't know a better line for this other then
"except for the grace of god that could be me" 
I sat in emergency here and a kid came in from the US with a bad cut his health care provider would not pay for medical work outside of the US so our guys fixed him up enough so that he could cross the border to go to a US hospital , there are many clauses and riders in the various health care plans that many aren't aware of how much and where they can obtain treatment


----------



## ccheese (Aug 1, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> I really don't give a crap about older people......



I hope you remember that when you become a "senior citizen".

Charles


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 1, 2008)

ccheese said:


> I hope you remember that when you become a "senior citizen".
> 
> Charles


I'm not worried I'm covered but I was refering to the US where I would be worried


----------



## Matt308 (Aug 2, 2008)

Pb, I find it hard to believe that a YOUNG US citizen was unable to find ANY healthcare in a timely fashion.

I would have to ask the specifics of the case. Because that is just extraordinary.


----------



## Danielmellbin (Aug 2, 2008)

I would like to ask all the backers of McCain here (or atleast the anti-Obama's) to state the points of what will happen (+consequences) when/if he takes office that wouldn't happen when/if McCain takes office. Will be interesting to view 4 years from now?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 2, 2008)

Danielmellbin said:


> I would like to ask all the backers of McCain here (or atleast the anti-Obama's) to state the points of what will happen (+consequences) when/if he takes office that wouldn't happen when/if McCain takes office. Will be interesting to view 4 years from now?



Hold on, let me get my crystal ball...


----------



## Aussie1001 (Aug 2, 2008)

while your at it tell me what my wife will look like is she attractive?


----------



## Aussie1001 (Aug 2, 2008)

I have read quite a bit of this thread (thank my crappy dialup for me not reading it all) and i can say that i am shocked by the level of hospital degredation in western countires not just the U.S Australia for example while not on the same level as the us is still pretty bad. I might blame this on capitalisim for one of the reasons as someone said earlier hospitals are a black hole, the do not give returns and that is what modern day capitalist countires want come to think of it that's what any country wants. Maybe the taxes they put on ciggerettes and booze should be used for funding of the health system, ironic huh.


----------



## mkloby (Aug 2, 2008)

Danielmellbin said:


> I would like to ask all the backers of McCain here (or atleast the anti-Obama's) to state the points of what will happen (+consequences) when/if he takes office that wouldn't happen when/if McCain takes office. Will be interesting to view 4 years from now?



Adler's right - there's no way to look into the future and say, but here's a few...
- McCain won't begin cancelling DoD research and development programs
- McCain won't support slashing the military budget
- McCain supports decreasing the corporate tax rate
- Hopefully McCain won't support nonsense like Obama's Global Poverty Act

Obama is a socialist, there is no way around it. If you believe that capitalism is evil, he's your man. Economists shudder at the "economic plan" of his platform. If you believe people are incapable of planning and managing their own lives, then he's your man.

I for one believe in having the opportunity to live your life as you see fit w/o the government getting involved. Why should the government force me to save for retirement via social security? Why should I pay more taxes to support those that made poor decisions with their life? Of course there are catastrophies that happen in people's lives, but these are not the issue. If you made no investment in your education or job skills, why should be be entitled to more income than what someone is willing to pay you (including healthcare)? The money must come from somewhere - and it's not right to penalize those that did make the investments and sacrifices in their lives.

I'll also toss out that Obama also opposed the ban on partial birth abortion - there are few things on this earth more cruel than that practice.

This only scratches the surface.

However - Obama does support pay as you go federal programs helping to establish a balanced budget. That is the only part of his platform I could agree with after reading all his positions.


----------



## Njaco (Aug 2, 2008)

Sounds like a swell idea, Aussie....

toledoblade.com -- Ohio tobacco settlement funds are put off-limits


----------



## ToughOmbre (Aug 2, 2008)

mkloby said:


> I'll also toss out that Obama also opposed the ban on partial birth abortion - there are few things on this earth more cruel than that practice.



That alone is a deal breaker for me. There is not a politician on this planet that I would support who believes in this barbaric practice. 

Deal breaker number two: Obama is against the 2nd amendment. He'll say that he supports it, but he's full of crap; he supported DC's ban on handguns until the SC found it unconstitutional. 

TO


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 2, 2008)

ToughOmbre said:


> That alone is a deal breaker for me. There is not a politician on this planet that I would support who believes in this barbaric practice.



I will agree with you on that. It is a terrible thing, and I do not understand how anyone can support it.


----------



## Danielmellbin (Aug 2, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Hold on, let me get my crystal ball...



Ok - is wasn't talking about a nostradamus-like future magic read.

There's plenty of crystalball looking in many of the posts here (including mine). I would just like to hear what people think the consequences will be from McCain/Obama.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 2, 2008)

Danielmellbin said:


> I would just like to hear what people think the consequences will be from McCain/Obama.



Lets see I will make it short and simple and cover it in two sentences.

McCain - A better life for Americans no matter what the world thinks, but who cares what the world thinks.

Obama - More money coming out of Americans pockets and not such a good life, but the world will love us (atleast in a fake way).


----------



## Danielmellbin (Aug 2, 2008)

Aussie1001 said:


> I have read quite a bit of this thread (thank my crappy dialup for me not reading it all) and i can say that i am shocked by the level of hospital degredation in western countires not just the U.S Australia for example while not on the same level as the us is still pretty bad. I might blame this on capitalisim for one of the reasons as someone said earlier hospitals are a black hole, the do not give returns and that is what modern day capitalist countires want come to think of it that's what any country wants. Maybe the taxes they put on ciggerettes and booze should be used for funding of the health system, ironic huh.



Yea - hospitals, infrastructure, schools, police etc... Should not be put up as capitalistic organizations. They return "profit" in other ways.


----------



## Matt308 (Aug 2, 2008)

First let me get this out of the way on our candidate choices...



There. I feel better.

McCain is a leader. He will make informed decisions that are in the US (and world's best interest), even if at the expense of jeapardizing near-term benefits for a great majority of US citizenry.

Obama will make strategic decisions based upon his perception of US voters judging him in a negative light. We have seen this already. No surge. Surge. No 2nd Amendment rights. Pro 2nd Amendment. Anti-lobbyist. Pro-lobbyist. No cuban embargo. Cuban embargo. Embrace Iran. Punish Iran. No border fence. Border fence. yadda yadda yadda.

This guy's leadership ability waves with the wind. Can anybody really vote for this dude?


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ul8gPo4zwo_


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 2, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> Pb, I find it hard to believe that a YOUNG US citizen was unable to find ANY healthcare in a timely fashion.
> 
> I would have to ask the specifics of the case. Because that is just extraordinary.


you misread it or my english sucks


----------



## Matt308 (Aug 2, 2008)

I musta misread it.


----------



## Danielmellbin (Aug 2, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> First let me get this out of the way on our candidate choices...
> 
> 
> 
> ...





_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sARnrGPlzDg_ - Obama responds to hecklers


----------



## Matt308 (Aug 2, 2008)

You have made my point. Who would vote for this guy?

Bush was, is and will be villified for his lack of communication skills. Bush makes this guy look like the village idiot. Obama's asked about what he has done about numerous black community issues (  ) and his response is he issued statements. That's leadership right there.

So Daniel you asked about the soothesaying aspect of McCain vs Obama. And numerous folks have replied. Is that a dead issue for you now? Are we moving on?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 2, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> You have made my point. Who would vote for this guy?
> 
> Bush was, is and will be villified for his lack of communication skills. Bush makes this guy look like the village idiot. Obama's asked about what he has done about numerous black community issues (  ) and his response is he issued statements. That's leadership right there.
> 
> So Daniel you asked about the soothesaying aspect of McCain vs Obama. And numerous folks have replied. Is that a dead issue for you now? Are we moving on?



But, But, But, What, What, What, But, But, But, But, Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Which, Which, Which, Of, Of, Of....


----------



## Danielmellbin (Aug 2, 2008)

[deleted BS that apparently was not worthy of debate]

These points are *not* for debate purposes - just "educated" guesses. In 4/8 years you can then mock me or hear me sing I told you so


----------



## ccheese (Aug 2, 2008)

Daniel: I see you have a crystal ball.....do you read tea leaves too ?

Charles


----------



## Matt308 (Aug 2, 2008)

Daniel... I am speechless. I can't fathom if you are... I'm speechless.

Based upon that last post, you have lost all respect with me.


----------



## Matt308 (Aug 2, 2008)

Then why post them. I deleted them if they are not worthy of debate. Plus, I found your post offensive. Move that stuff elsewhere (Obama 5 and McCain 5).

Have a nice day.


----------



## Matt308 (Aug 2, 2008)

Daniel,

Obama 5 and McCain 5 are completely insulting to the US. For you to insinuate such is offensive.

What's your next gem of a post.


----------



## Danielmellbin (Aug 2, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> Based upon that last post, you have lost all respect with me.



Sorry to hear that.



Matt308 said:


> Daniel,
> 
> Obama 5 and McCain 5 are completely insulting to the US. For you to insinuate such is offensive.
> 
> What's your next gem of a post.



Hmm... that puzzles me. Since they so not refer to the US in general - but to singular events (that have been seen before).


----------



## Matt308 (Aug 2, 2008)

Next...


----------



## Danielmellbin (Aug 2, 2008)

Bye - and take care all - see my post in the "basic" section for more information.


----------



## Freebird (Aug 2, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> Daniel,
> 
> Obama 5 and McCain 5 are completely insulting to the US. For you to insinuate such is offensive.
> 
> What's your next gem of a post.







Matt308 said:


> Then why post them. I deleted them if they are not worthy of debate. Plus, I found your post offensive. Move that stuff elsewhere (Obama 5 and McCain 5).
> 
> Have a nice day.



Matt, what's going on? Why was his post insulting? I thought this was a thread to post about politics, which is what he did?


----------



## Matt308 (Aug 3, 2008)

I made a mistake in creating this thread. Thread closed.


----------

