Post by Andre LievenPost by Mark SobolewskiHello Andre,
Post by Andre LievenPost by Mark SobolewskiPost by Andre LievenFor instance, the current Republicans want to *spend
without actually paying for it*.
Let's discuss this claim.
You have a point, but note that the Democrats aren't much different.
This isn't an issue of party uber alles. Its a matter of,
who was President, and who was in Congress, when the government
spent no more than they took in, say, in 1999-2001.
Post by Mark SobolewskiEvery dollar they get to "pay" for something would only inspire
them to spend it (and possibly more) immediately.
" Coulda, woulda, shoulda. "
Mark, who was President and who was in Congress, when the budget
was in surplus ?
Post by Mark SobolewskiYes, it's
an awful situation, but deficit spending is still better than
blowing twice as much money that's "paid" for.
Tell that to Visa...
Post by Mark Sobolewski(I'm reminded of a Married with Children
episode where Al got his retirement funds and his wife
insisted upon holding onto them to hide them from creditors
and she blew it all on the home shopping network.)
OK. Who was President when the US budget was in surplus,
again ?
Post by Mark SobolewskiPost by Andre LievenPost by SocietyTerrible that clinton can't honestly get credit
for "a balanced budget" (if Social Security
liabilities are omitted) or "a shrinking debt". ;-)
Well, Preseidents get the credit, and the debit.
It comes with the job, *either way*...
Indeed. Reagan won the cold war after all. :-)
Hey: When did you become Richie Soyack ?
Truman-Bush I, plus Churchill-Thatcher, plus a host
of others " won " the Cold War.
Who was in office when the cold war ended?
GW Bush. Does that mean that " Truman won WW2 " ? After all,
" who was in office when WW2 ended ? "
Of course, note that I never bought into the dichotomy of assigning
credit to presidents based simply upon what happened on their watch.
Using YOUR logic, GW Bush deserves credit for ending the cold war.
Post by Andre LievenThe point remains, that these are more complex issues that
transcend any one man.
Gee, and economies are so simple. That's why they are so easily
predictable. :-)
Post by Andre LievenPost by Mark SobolewskiWe could just as easily argue that Chamberlain deserves as much
credit as Churchill for winning WWII (appeasement was part
of his strategy, you see :-)
So was rebuilding much of the UK's armed forces, with which his
successor then fought the war...
If he hadn't engaged in appeasement, it's possible the war
wouldn't have happened to begin with...
Post by Andre LievenPost by Mark SobolewskiYour positions sound very selective, pardon me for saying so.
Not really: I'm looking at big pictures.
Ah, it's simple when the conclusions suit you and complicated when
the conclusions suit you. :-)
Post by Andre LievenPost by Mark SobolewskiPost by Andre LievenPost by Mark SobolewskiPost by Andre LievenEven to fools who view taxation as theft, this is a
felonious higher level of theft.
As I said, that depends upon how you look at it. Do you really
want to have your pocket picked MORE but thank heavens
it's not being assigned to credit?
Well, I don't agree with a view that sees taxes as being
" picked ".
Stuff costs. In both the private and public sectors...
This sounds like an argument of obfuscation. Sure, stuff "costs"
but then why debate such issues as credit or efficiency in paying
for healthcare?
Because any service provider can be properly measured in those
terms, *among others*...
Indeed. In the states, the best and cheapest schools (after all
sources are funding are accounted) tend to be private.
Note too that HMO's are inefficient monopolies created by the democrats.
Post by Andre LievenPost by Mark SobolewskiStop waffling, Kerry! :-)
Non sequitur. I'm merely... being consistant. No waffles there.
You had argued that efficiency mattered and then when confronted
with a possibility that the government might become more wasteful
you dismissed it.
Your non-sequitur accusation is a non-sequitur.
Post by Andre LievenPost by Mark SobolewskiPost by Andre LievenPost by Mark SobolewskiIronically, the "deficit spending is evil" mantra does help in the
long run by making people worry about increased spending because
it can't be "paid" for. The fact is that there never will be enough
money in the American treasury for all the things the different
national daycare
national healthcare
national education
universities (also known as commie indoctrination camps)
new roads
druggie welfare senior citizens
You get the idea. There simply isn't enough money to "pay for" all of that!
Well, we socialists here in Canada have most of that, a budget
surplus, a healthy and growing economy, with a higher proportional
job growth rate than the US, a positive balance of trade, and so
on.
Now, if you let your patricians loot the US Treasury, for the benefit
of the uberrich, then yes, there won't be " enough " money.
You probably also spend a lot less on national defense than the US
does. :-)
Sure: We don't need a nuclear deterrent. And, we don't engage in
empire building.
I'll be the first to agree that empires do cost more than they gain
in the modern era at least for the nation engaging in them.
But the side benefits are enjoyed by all. Europe lives in freedom
because the U.S. led NATO against the USSR (The French would have
long ago settled for a Soviet occupation force in replacement
of the Germans).
Post by Andre LievenPost by Mark SobolewskiI have told you that I honestly don't know enough about Canada to feel
comfortable to make negative statements about it. What I think I do
know is that what works (or appears to work) in Canada wouldn't apply
to the US
for a variety of reasons including (and correct me if I'm wrong)
1) Lower immigration and ethnic tensions than exist in the states.
Wrong. Canada has a *higher rate* of immigration, on a proportional
basis. Our population is around 32,000,000 right now, and we have
about 250,000 immigrants, per year, coming in. Oh, US immigration
into Canada is on the upswing...
That suits me just fine. :-)
In answer to your claim I'm wrong: You can argue that I'm "wrong"
only if you look at one set of numbers and especially a set that
doesn't take into account illegal immigration.
Post by Andre LievenBut, racial tensions here are lower, yes.
Post by Mark Sobolewski2) I don't know about Canada in this case, but Europe supposedly just
outright
"steals" US pharmaceuticals patents by threatening to license them if
the companies don't fix prices.
Since the gov't buys in *bulk*, it negotiates bulk buying prices.
Thats called using multinational corp. standards back at 'em.
" Turn about is fair play ".
Yet, you want to whine about other countries (gasp!) selling products
are great prices that people can't resist buying!
Post by Andre LievenPost by Mark Sobolewski3) The US has been in a recession. It's coming out of it. We'll see
how much longer Canada's "higher proportional job growth rate" lasts.
Its doing pretty well, over the last five years...
And our dollar, which was at 62.5 cents US, almost two years ago,
is now closing in on 84 cents. That speaks to the *confidence* of
the world *marketplace* in Canada, and a lower rate of same wrt
the US...
So, Mark, the *marketplace* is speaking, and it's saying that not
everything going on within the US is *as good* as whats going on
in Canada.
As you know, the US dollar is lower overall so don't start tooting
Canada's horn yet. But then again, it does say a lot that you
can only view Canada's success in comparison to it's neighbor
in the south. Get the point?
Post by Andre Lieven" You're a liberated woman. Learn to *lose*. " Danny DeVito,
" Other People's Money ".
Post by Mark SobolewskiWhen you talk about looting the treasury, that's a perfect argument to
be made
for NOT nationalizing health care in this country. The educational
and university
system is a mess. The healthcare system wouldn't control costs but
would instead
see them leap out of control as the doctor's union insisted upon new
bond measures
to pay their salaries whether Americans used their health care or not.
Well, do it our way, and that doesn't happen.
Great. Pick up a few hundred million people and immigrants from
here and we'll check it out.
You sound like some kid with a lemonaide stand trying to lecture
his parents on how they should run their business.
Post by Andre LievenPost by Mark SobolewskiIn other words, Andre, I'm not taking this opportunity to bash Canada.
I'm merely
saying that what works for Canada simply wouldn't do the same here.
Fair enough?
Maybe: Have you ever *tried* ?
See above. Small economies :-) don't necessary scale to large ones.
Er, doesn't California have a large economy than Canada?
Post by Andre LievenPost by Mark SobolewskiPost by Andre LievenBut, not because there never was enough money...
Oh, I'll kind of agree with you there. The US has a LOT of money
(real or not :-)
The problem is that the same forces that currently allow it to be
wasted would
only waste it that much faster if the government became larger.
That, Mark, is an article of *faith*.
It's an article of observation. Lessee: Social security: About to
go bankrupt. The educational system: On a downward spiral.
Even our empire building.
Post by Andre Lieven" Show me the money ! " Jerry McGuire.
Indeed. America has been blowing all this money to no avail for some
time. Now you want to argue they should blow more?
Is that being consistent?
Post by Andre LievenPost by Mark SobolewskiPost by Andre LievenBTW, Mondale opposed NASA for about the same reasons you just
listed... Yet, Armstrong walked on the Moon, anyway. Turned
out there was " enough " money... :-)
Come now. You know that a mission with a clear, single objective is
far different than a managerial one.
Yet, management was involved, without which, it would have failed.
Don't be obtuse. You know what I'm talking about: There is a difference
between a very well funded and specific goal (get a man to the moon,
here's a few billion bucks) versus running a cost-efficient program
or one that provides services to millions of people.
Post by Andre LievenPost by Mark SobolewskiOnce again, you kind of prove my point for me: After the moon landing,
NASA languished
because it didn't have any specific clear purpose. The space shuttle
was a boondoggle
and it's private companies that are now picking up the slack. Thank
you!
Um... Tell me that when they orbit something. As has been elequently
discussed on sci.space.history, the issues of ballistic sub-orbital
flight, and orbital flight are so different, that doing the smaller
one doesn't prove that you can do the larger one for under several
*billion* more...
Isn't that where the public space program started?
Post by Andre LievenPost by Mark SobolewskiOh, how many times has Canada landed on the moon?
Lets see: 12 guys got to the Moon, 32,000,000 Canadians have health
care...
GOOD POINT!
Indeed, YOU brought up the moon program and now you're sweeping it
under the rug using my point? Thief! :-)
Post by Andre LievenPost by Mark SobolewskiPost by Andre LievenPost by Mark SobolewskiCertainly not enough if "some guy behind the tree" is supposed to get the bill.
Kerry said he was only going to tax people above 200K and I think
everyone knew he was BSing and would say on day 1 "Oh, I guess
that's not possible. OK, we now need an 80% tax rate."
Well, all those numbers sound like BS to me...
The first one was Kerry's. :-)
So ? One hardly wants to overtax the poor; they don't have money.
You must be pretty rich if you think people earning less than
200K are "poor". :-)
Post by Andre LievenPost by Mark SobolewskiPost by Andre LievenPost by Mark SobolewskiLet's discuss that: What do you think of trying to "pay for" things
with someone else's money? How about a tax to pay for it all
for guys named Andre? (No name changes allowed! that's tax
evasion!)
Naw. Thats, like, ya know... discrimination.
Sure. "Positive" discrimination. :-) All the judges named Bruce will
agree that it's not "bad" discrimination.
Waffle.
Yet, that's precisely the thinking in many of the courts. Don't blame me.
Post by Andre LievenPost by Mark SobolewskiPost by Andre LievenPost by Mark SobolewskiSeriously, the left sold these tax increases as for "the rich" when
the reality is they create loopholes for themselves anyway (Therea
Heinz had an effective 12% tax rate.)
How is she a " leftist " ?
Interesting enough, at the time she married the ketchup heir, she
wasn't.
Somehow, she turned into a total wacko marxist.
In what way ? It's common to try, and succeed, in demonising
political opponents by slinging the word " liberal " at them.
Indeed. Probably because the label often fits so well AND the
US public at least doesn't buy into it.
How about this: When the left finds a way to fix social security
and education and make it perform effeciently, then they'll go
and cede off management of health care.
Post by Andre LievenI'm interested in what *substance* there is for such a claim.
I asked, and you offered... AbZero. I can make a reasonable
conclusion from that... That the claim is baseless.
If you like, I can google some stuff for you later. I've read
that she's used her former husband's ketchup money to fund
all kinds of leftist foundations including one that sympathizes
with Palestinians. The funniest was her funding a few widows
of victims of 9-11 who suprisingly showed their support
for Kerry and tried to generalize that they represented all
9-11 widows.
Post by Andre LievenPost by Mark SobolewskiPost by Andre LievenPost by Mark SobolewskiPost by Andre LievenPost by SocietyPlus one can arguably claim that the costs of
coping with the injuries to the US economy
from the dot.com bust plus 9/11 and its
aftermath belong squarely on the clinton side
of the ledger -- just as honest business
accounting treats deferred maintenance
expenses.
Yet, they're hardly the worst factors in jobs
being shipped overseas ( See " Exporting
America ", by CNN host Lou Dobbs, who also has
a very good record with space advocacy ),
or in a fedeeal gov't spending what they refuse
to raise...
I don't buy this zero sum game. Would you really rather pay,
say, 10 bucks for Canadian made underwear than 1 dollar made
in China?
I often pay more, for a better product.
But what if it's not or it doesn't matter?
<shrug>
So you're just blowing off that point?
What if it doesn't matter? You keep saying: "it's poor quality
and slave labor" but if it's not, what then?
Post by Andre LievenPost by Mark SobolewskiIf consumers want cheap underwear why is that a bad thing?
If it means that one's economy goes down the crapper, then
that is a bad thing.
Post by Mark SobolewskiAre they going to pass them down to their children or something?
Well, they will, with their earned riches...
Post by Mark SobolewskiRegardless, you've missed the point: outsourcing doesn't necessarily
result in inferior products which is precisely what makes it so
dangerous.
No, it just results in looted economies. Its quite reasonable for
a People to say, via their government ( When it's not in the
pockets of the uberrich, that is ), that " you wanna make money
here ? You're gonna spend some here, too. "
Ok, now I can address the lower dollar (hint: It's not confidence
in Canada that you're getting more US dollar for yours :-)
What do you think happens when someone sells a product in the states
in dollars? What do they do with them? They're printed by the
treasury like so much toilet paper after all.
They have to buy SOMETHING or wallpaper their home! I could even
argue that a trade deficit works in the US's favor.
Post by Andre LievenPost by Mark SobolewskiPost by Andre LievenAnd, I don't need
the last drams of " price drops " at WalMart, due to the stuff
being made by 12 year old Vietnamese, or prisoners in China.
This is a legitimate moral argument, but it doesn't necessarily apply
to all
outsourcing. Sometimes, people in other countries are simply willing
to work for less because the cost of living is lower there.
Cite ? Uh huh...
<Projection> No proof offered ? Claim fails.
Many IT workers in Russia or India are perfectly happy and content
with their jobs in nice cities and earning a comparitively higher
paycheck. Do you dispute this?
Post by Andre LievenPost by Mark SobolewskiPost by Andre LievenMy values sometimes do cost me something. But, if they never
did, would they be values, or mere rationalisations ?
Come now. Your primary concern (rightly so) is the impact of
joblessness on the local economy. Focus on that rather than going for
red-herrings when
I bring up the point that cheaper products do provide a benefit.
A one dollar " benefit " when you lose thousands is not a Good Thing...
HAHAHAHA!
Seriously, you are going into hysterics. One dollar benefit for
thousands? Where did you pull that out of?
Post by Andre LievenThat was your waffle, BTW. As I said, I'm looking at the big picture,
in spite of attempts to drop into the peripheral and irrelevent.
Yes, all outsourcing and cheaper foreign made goods are made
crappy by slave labor resulting in a 1000:1 loss ratio for each
dollar saved.
Okay....
Post by Andre LievenPost by Mark SobolewskiPost by Andre LievenPost by Mark SobolewskiYou can then use the 9 bucks you saved to buy other Canadian products,
well, such as bacon and beer. :-) You get the idea. Is it a good idea
to keep "jobs" home if those jobs are not being done well? Ultimately,
it all boils down to whether the product is worth it.
No, thats one data point. There are others, like, does a people
want to have some say over their nation's economy ?
So don't buy crappy, slave-labor made, products! Done!
So, label them as such. Done !
In the states, that is the case. People often prefer to buy
foreign made products.
Post by Andre LievenIs is informed public a bad idea ? Why ?
Never said it was.
Post by Andre LievenPost by Mark SobolewskiIt's one data point, but it's a pretty big data point: cost is the
first thing
people look at in buying something especially if it's a generic
commodity.
Yet, not the *only* thing...
Never said it was.
Post by Andre LievenPost by Mark SobolewskiYou pay for oil and probably don't think much about where it came
from.
Sure I do. It comes from Alberta.
Post by Mark SobolewskiThe greatest concern with outsourcing in recent years has been
precisely
with products made by well qualified software engineers who aren't
being slave driven but rather living quite well.
In very dis-similar economies. Thats where " free trade " fails.
Er, the WHOLE POINT of trade is for dis-similar economies to take
advantage of each other's differences. If prices for products
are the same across the board, then what's the point?
Post by Andre LievenOh, on that point: Why is it that the US likes " free trade "
*until* someone else does a thng better ? See " softwood
lumber "...
:-) Hey, GW changed his mind the steel tariffs.
Post by Andre LievenSo, even your own nation doesn't believe in what you're saying...
Hey, I'll be the first to say that government is not trustworthy
hence my libertarian stance.
Post by Andre LievenPost by Mark SobolewskiPost by Andre LievenPost by Mark SobolewskiPost by Andre LievenPost by SocietyOh and don't overlook the corporate crimes
that took place during clinton's party years
and were uncovered on Bush watch.
Yet, the crimes continue... so the current Bush
watch has done no better than Clinton's...
Agreed. Note a lot of this is due to the fact that America HAS
a decent economy for all this kind of stuff to happen in the private
sector. In most other commie/socialist nations, the government
doesn't even bother reporting it. That's how it's SUPPOSED to work.
Yet, we know that corporate looting in the fUSSR has far surpassed
anything that was done there, prior to.
Don't forget Western Europe (soon to be renamed New Algeria and
Turkey)
One word: Enron...
On whose watch did this company come to fruition? All that dot-com
nonsense was Clinton's doing and it was coming undone even
before GW came into office.
Post by Andre LievenPost by Mark SobolewskiPost by Andre LievenWell, the private sector seems to be best at dismantling nations...
Once again, come now. Without the private sector, there isn't anyone
to pay enough taxes to make all those fantasy free handouts work
effectively to begin with! :-)
Not when it isn't given... *limits*. We call those: laws.
Wanna revisit untrammeled capitalism ? We call that " The Great
Depression "...
And what made it all the more greater was FDR's socialistic
spending (into debt, remember debt being bad) that dragged it on
for 10 years afterwards.
Plus, speaking of LAWS, Hoover passwd all kinds of monetary laws
that helped to destabilize the economy.
Today, we're facing social security going bankrupt which is
a holdover from those days. That's untrammeled socialism for ya.
Post by Andre LievenPost by Mark SobolewskiPost by Andre LievenPost by Mark SobolewskiPost by Andre LievenPost by SocietyPost by Andre LievenClinton wasn't the Devil. Neither was either Bush. OK ?
OK.
Thats my point, really. Lets move away from demonising
either side, by either it's persons, or it's being an
opposition to the other, and consider that neither
party, or side of the ideological divide is wholly
correct.
This is moderate wussying. Hitler built bridges too and kept
the trains running on time. He did recover the economy
of his country (granted, until he ran it broke and had to start
his war of conquest early, thank heavens.)
OK: Godwin's Law. Argument over, you lose.
If you want to run for the exit, go right ahead. But you aren't
Just pointing out *your* having stepped over the line... While
I stuck to the issues.
Yeah, when it comes to staying in line you've got that down pat. :-)
I'll stand my ground on this one: There are larger issues of
individual rights and ideas still around from the time of the cold
war and yes, WWII that need to be dealt with.
There's outright race bashing in the states reminiscent of nazi
germany. Substitute the word "Jew" for "white male" in the rhetoric
of modern leftists. The left wants to attack heterosexual
two parent families in a bid to increase their political power.
Pardon me if I don't feel like rubber stamping all of that just
to maybe, maybe, get affordable healthcare.
Note that I do have healthcare. It's not as cheap as I would like
but it does get the job done.
Post by Andre LievenPost by Mark SobolewskiPost by Andre LievenPost by Mark SobolewskiClinton and his ilk are dehumanizing socialists whose goal
is to destroy two parent families in order to create a single mother
welfare class dependant upon socialist voters. Fortunately,
he apparently was concerned more about his political survival
than his agenda. But that hardly makes him a nice guy.
Ah, but I never suggested that he, or anyone else in office,
was a " nice guy ".
I would rather break Godwin's law than being obtuse as you appear
to be. Really, Andre, if you make such wuss
arguments than I say America ought to invade Canada again.
<shrug> " There you go again "...
MS-ing my point... Or, avoiding it. <shrug>
Try stating one clearly and I'll have a harder time avoiding it.
Post by Andre LievenPost by Mark SobolewskiThis time, we'd beat the pants off of you for sure! :-)
Well, you're 0 for 3, so far. I'm good with that record. <g>
Yeah, but back then you guys weren't afraid to use guns.
Post by Andre LievenPost by Mark Sobolewski(But we really ought to wait until we get done with other business
first :-)
That means, we're safe, forever ! Yay !
Post by Mark SobolewskiPaying more for healthcare isn't that much a big deal compared to the
possibility of further empowering a marxist, anti-western, anti-male
state. Address that point please.
Proof that Canada is " marxist " ? None offered ? Claim fails.
I was talking about the states. :-)
Post by Andre LievenDone.
Post by Mark SobolewskiPost by Andre LievenConsider: Using percentages, we can say that there are 100
( Well, 101, from 0 to 100 ) levels of " nice/not nice ", and
" effective/not ".
One can be on the " effective " side of that measure, and
still, as a person, be over to the " not nice " side of
that measure.
But, who cares ? I don't care if my leaders are " nice ",
I prefer them to be " effective ", in doing things like not
getting the next two generations in hock for what they did.
I don't want to break Godwin's law again, but do you just realize
the ticket you gave politicians? Do you want leaders who
are simply effective? Effectively anti-male? Effectively
out to disempower the individual?
Sigh. I would have thought that you understood that, my record
on issues of men's rights being reasonably clear, I was speaking
of doing reasonable and good things.
BTW, which of our two nations has " The Patriot Act " again ?
Remember when you compared the moon landing to health care
based upon services? (wonder where you got that idea? :-)
I don't spend a lot of time worrying about the Patriot act so much
as the other apparently smaller but more meaningful impacts federal
law has upon my life. The Patriot Act didn't make it a crime
for a man to tell a woman she looks pretty in the workplace, for example.
Post by Andre LievenWe name our laws a bit less... jingoistically... It lets people
oppose them without being deemed " anti-Canadian ".
VAWA, Affirmative action, positive discrimination, it's all good (or bad.)
Post by Andre LievenPost by Mark SobolewskiIt's interesting you should make that argument because I think the
current success of the American system is that it's not effective
for both sides. Do you think a left winger that gets elected on
slushing
money to it's constituencies wants the problems that drive their
voters to the polls to be solved? On the contrary: The worse the
problems
get, the more they can count on the slobs to run for their carrot.
Again, thats rather simplistic, and jingoistic. Because it denies
that anyone can want to do Good, in the process, yet you ASSume
that the private sector will do Good, in it's process.
I ASSume that the private sector does good when it's in their best
interests to do good lest they lose business.
A bureaucrat who gets paid whether they do a good job or not (and may
even get paid more) is far more dangerous.
Post by Andre LievenThat, Mark, is being a True Believer. The truth of the *facts*
behind the belief become irrelevent to such people.
Hey, I don't trust corporations either. I'm all for reasonable
oversight. I could just as easily turn around and argue that
if you think a government can't perform oversight on a corporation,
what makes you think they can do it for themselves?!?!?!
Post by Andre LievenPost by Mark SobolewskiOr to put it this way: National healthcare in the states would work as
well as national education.
And, thats an article of... faith.
It's also known as logic. If someone does a bad job with
nearly every large scale social program they're given, what
makes you think another one would be any different?
Post by Andre LievenIs public military force raising
working better than private such ?
As you and I both know, a military is part of a core function
of government similar to police and courts. By definition
(outside of some "extreme" libertarian positions), it needs to
be centralized by government.
Post by Andre LievenSo much for claims, then, that
the public sector cannot do anything right...
As YOU, repeat, YOU noted in a distinction above: Landing someone
on the moon is a far different task than providing healthcare to
millions of people. Blowing stuff up is a lot different than
patching roads or running a schoolhouse
Post by Andre LievenPost by Mark SobolewskiAnd that's a good thing. The US will provide leadership to end this
marxist anti-male plague just as it ended the cold war.
<shrug> Faith, again. Others do disagree. Canada, for one.
<sarcasm>
I'm crushed
</sarcasm laughter=medium>
Post by Andre LievenWe'll
do it our way, thank you very much, and too bad if you don't like
what that means.
Er, you are aware that you don't have a vote in the US elections?
That you don't have a say in how the US carries out military policy?
Post by Andre LievenIncluding on seeing how you do things... more
poorly, due to that Faith.
Post by Mark SobolewskiPost by Andre LievenOur debt's dropping. Hows yours ?
Honestly, I see it dropping in about 2 years and then it will kick in
again as social security goes bankrupt (thanks to a previous "efficient"
politician, FDR)
Well, you're alone in that faith based belief. The economic trend
lines are all going the other way. Thats *one reason* the Cdn $ is
climbing so dramatically.
I think about 50 million other voters happened to agree with me.
And you can look up the numbers on CNN yourself (I'll find a link
if you need it). 300K more jobs added just last MONTH for a start!
The stock market soaring. Sorry about the "bad" news.
As I said above, the exchange rate isn't really that big a deal except
for people wanting to buy other stuff. :-)
Post by Andre LievenPost by Mark SobolewskiAnd Bush will get all that credit for the next 4 years. Already, the
stock market is rallying and job growth is through the roof.
Not according to the papers I'm reading...
Oh no! Then it must not be true! :-)
Post by Andre LievenBTW, is Iraq " pacified " yet ? Snarf.
Lessee: Free elections are scheduled this December.
Really, Andre, I sense a bit of anti-americanism coming from you
and it's not out of line with the talking points Kerry tried
to sell the voters. "Hey! Vote for me! I HATE America!
I went to North Vietnam and told them to kill my fellow veterans!
I'll get the job done in Iraq just like I did for Vietnam."
Post by Andre LievenPost by Mark SobolewskiPost by Andre LievenPost by Mark SobolewskiPost by Andre LievenSo, speaking for myself, for instance, I can support,
here in Canada, public medicine, which to my view,
works for us very well, indeed. Yet, at the same
time, I oppose gay " marriage ", and, as I'd tried to
point out on another newsgroup, when it was claimed that
such opponents had to be religiously based in their
opposition, that my opposition is wholly secular.
I think at one point in time, national education in the states worked
as well. Then, as the teachers unions kicked in and were protected
by the government (and could set prices the taxpayers HAD to pay),
it degenerated into a big mess. Now, trying to eliminate government
control of education is impossible.
Well, the schools here do rather well. So, maybe your public
system is " nice ", but " not effective ".
It's neither for the reasons I mentioned at the beginning of this
post.
Yet, you admit that you don't know much about Canada, so you make
such a claim ? Cites, please.
I was talking about the US system.
Post by Andre LievenPost by Mark SobolewskiPost by Andre LievenBTW, " free enterprise " sucked from Oct 1929, for a decade.
Did you just junk it ?
You forgot about socialism kicking in two years later. FDR got out of
it by going to war. Who says that war is a bad thing?
Well, that " socialism " bought ships that won the Battle of Midway...
Yep, but going into DEBT!!!
So lessee: Socialism didn't fix the great depression (and even made it
worse) and then FDR went into war and sunk the country further into
debt and started a US empire.
Gee, makes GW seem kind of moderate... :-)
Post by Andre LievenSee how the Yorktown and Enterprise got ordered, funded, and built...
The same way that we're paying for star wars today. :-)
Post by Andre LievenPost by Mark SobolewskiPost by Andre LievenPost by Mark SobolewskiSure, the government CAN do a job effectively, but does that mean
you want to put your trust in it?
Far more so, than Ken Lay/Enron or HMOs..
Ok then. Whose asking you to?
Youse all.
Post by Mark SobolewskiSeriously Andre. You notice how I respectfully declined to criticize
Canadian politics.
Sure, because you admit that you don't know much about it. That isn't
a situation I share, wrt US politics. Our news media cover, well,
more than lifestyle pieces...
INDEED!
Countries and their citizens who pride themselves on "staying in line"
don't get much newspaper coverage. What I have heard about Canadian
healthcare hasn't been pleasant but unlike you, I don't believe
in jumping to conclusions to suit my ideology.
Post by Andre LievenPost by Mark SobolewskiNot just out of ignorance, but simply out of recognition that the
countries have different issues to address.
OK.
Post by Mark SobolewskiIf you don't like Enron or HMO's or our foreign policy, then don't
live here.
Then, don't tell us what to do, either.
And I'm doing this, how?
Post by Andre LievenBut, given the number of times that the US has *violated* NAFTA
with Canada, that suggests that the word of the US is also in
deficit...
When you can negotiate "bunk" prices... :-)
Post by Andre LievenPost by Mark SobolewskiWe're talking about all these things about the US because the US is a
leader.
Size isn't competance...
Post by Mark SobolewskiNot just in Enron and HMO's and starting wars in Iraq, but the Internet,
standing up to the USSR, and the pharmaceuticals industry (off the top
of my head.) That makes us a target for criticism. Guess why!
See above.
Feel free then to tell me how many more drugs (or proportional based
upon population) the Canadian pharmaceutical industry is producing.
Or how the Canadians are leaders in high speed internet. Or
space technology.
Sometimes, people who say size doesn't matter are just small.
Post by Andre LievenPost by Mark SobolewskiPost by Andre LievenPost by Mark SobolewskiHow about this: Let's have
the government control all media including music and films.
After all, they do such a great job with healthcare surely
they can manage that too?
Naw. Whats the up side ? I can see the up side for our
health care, over yours. Everyone covered, and with less
cost to the nation ( 10% GDP in Canada, V/ 15% GDP for
HMO-Land... ).
Even if what you were saying was true, Andre, there is a fundamental
reason I oppose it: It's too much power in the hands of a government
that doesn't yet recognize individual rights (specifically mine) as I
think it should.
But, you would rather place such powers into *private* hands.
Eeek! INDIVIDUAL Freedom! Eeek!
:-)
At least with the health care system as it is now, I can refuse to pay
for it. Granted, I put my health at risk but I still have that option.
If I don't like a particular HMO, I can choose another. I can
decide that if a t-shirt is made by a sweatshop in China, I needn't
buy it. I can also decide to pay for a less expensive, but well
made product from India if I desire.
Social security is going down the toilet and there's nothing
anyone can do about it. Fortunately, it's taking down any
hopes or dreams of funding national healthcare (or daycare) with it.
Post by Andre LievenYes, as I said: Thats an article of Faith.
I never said that I would trust any corporation with absolute power
over my life. That's why I think it's great people should have
options to choose others or even opt out altogether.
Post by Andre LievenPost by Mark SobolewskiYou are willing to hand over your freedom to people who aren't
"nice" but, for the present, are "efficient". I wouldn't.
Wrong. You wnat precisely that, by vesting all that in " the
private sector ".
You make the mistake of assuming that the "private sector" is one
big, evil corporation. Even if they're a bunch of seperate evil
corporations, there is still greater choice than voting.
I've been getting a big laugh at the whining from the left recently
over (gasp!) that (gasp!) they're getting stuck with the results
of a democratic process. THEIR precious tax dollars might (gasp!)
go to pay for someone else's agenda (rather than vice versa).
Gasp! Gasp!
You're welcome to them.
Post by Andre LievenPost by Mark SobolewskiOn the contrary,
the last thing I want is a non-nice, efficient person to have power
over me.
<laughs> Thats *exactly* what you do have, Mark. The power of
untrammeled, and un-demanded-to-be-responsible corporations.
Lions and tigers and bears... OH MY!
Here's my standard (and so far, undisputed answer) to this hysterical
claim: If that's the case, then such corrupt powers-that-be would
only be further empowered by larger government programs. Aren't
the military contractors who make billions doing so under a federal
military procurement system?
If there is a lack of government oversight, that surely wouldn't
be enhanced by giving those same corrupt officials more power.
Eeeek! That policeman is so crooked! Quick, hire more just
like him! That'll fix the problem!
Post by Andre LievenPost by Mark SobolewskiYou come across as a whore.
Only to one who won't/can't see that there are legitimate opposing
points of view...
You failed to see my point. For someone whose making an ad-hominem
attack against me as some kind of closed minded demagogue, your
own knee jerk accusation only demonstrated your own closed-mindedness.
I'm saying that national healthcare, even if it did work as you claimed,
(and the jury is out on that), wouldn't be sufficient reason for me
to throw power to government with wild abandon. I can get by
with the system as it is now. I am not that insecure.
You sound like you would sell freedom for a bandaid.
Post by Andre LievenPost by Mark SobolewskiPost by Andre LievenOh, and we do have some gov't oversight over what qualifies
as Canadian content. It created a Canadian recording industry,
and much of what came/comes from that, is heard the world
over now. Their voices just needed... some room.
Yeah, room to move here and make their careers. :-)
Hey, I love John Candy and Mike Meyers!
Sure, they'll take your money.
Oh, I forgot to make this quip:
Yeah, when people think of western media influence in the world,
they think of Canada. :-)
Post by Andre LievenPost by Mark SobolewskiThen again, our private entertainment industry is so marxist that the
government
could hardly do a worse job. But that is thankfully changing.
I have no idea what you speak of. Shows that fail to get audiences
disappear, and ones that do, stay. Thats hardly " marxist ".
I meant they're ideologically marxist (even if they're a bunch of
ruthless capitalists in the worst sense of the word.)
And yes, the entertainment industry in the states is finding itself
in competition with local film industries in other nations and
blockbuster special effects can't sell films as easily as it used
to anymore.
Post by Andre LievenPost by Mark SobolewskiPost by Andre LievenSeems theres more than one way to get more good product.
The point, Mark, is that there is more than one way to
get things done, and what works, to some degree, for some,
though not all, in the US, is not necessarily the best
way for other lands, and peoples.
Agreed. But the reverse applies as well: What works in Canada (or
appears to) wouldn't necessarily work here.
Well, we're back to Faith, again.
Consider: Kerry was beloved in Canada but didn't get elected here.
That's number 1. If Leftists want to make the US more like Canada,
they need to win elections.
Post by Andre LievenWhere is it written that the US *cannot learn from anyone else* ?
Probably in the same place where it's written that you don't
want Canada to do things as the US does them either.
And I don't think you should. You needn't have a huge military
budget for instance.
Post by Andre LievenPost by Mark SobolewskiPost by Andre LievenIf you can find a copy of it, read Peter Gzowski's " The
Private Voice ". The essay dated from Canadian Thanksgiving
speaks well, and better than I've ever been able to say it,
to this point, and to the difference in how we, up here, see
these things. Its not that either is wrong, rather, its that
there is more than one way to get to whats right.
John Ralston Saul's " Reflections On A Siamese Twin ", is
also good about this.
I find it condescending and cowardly when someone refers to a reading
list in leau of completing their argument.
<shrug> You admitted that you know little about Canada. I offered
those so that you could close the gap, some.
<shrug> Still doesn't disprove what I wrote. And thank you for your
offer. I would suggest maybe that Canadians should focus on
making their country better rather than just being jealous of
the US. See! I can be helpful too!
Post by Andre LievenPost by Mark SobolewskiTell you what: When you have read
these works well enough to make the points they raise on your own,
then you'll have an intellectual right to cite them.
Theres, frankly, NO way to summarise them in under 100 words. Thats
a BS " standard ".
Well, that's your admission of your own inability, isn't it?
Why, if I can't lift this barbell then NOBODY can do it! :-)
It's impossible!
Post by Andre LievenOne might as well demand that a doctor summarise their education
in a five minute speech...
That's strange, I have had doctors do just that (more or less)
with such things as diagnoses and people do this with their
resume all the time.
It's not all that tough. It's not the same as reading a whole book
but that's what "summary" means: Not the whole thing.
Post by Andre LievenPost by Mark SobolewskiAt the risk of violating Godwin's law (noting that the law referred to
using references to Hitler as an emotional ploy rather than in context
such as a discussion of WWII), I suggest you read Mein Kampf. It's
not all that long and it's incredible how his philosophy of government
really isn't that far out of step with many modern socialists.
Its also a matter of learning that he didn't keep to any of those
ideas, when he was in power.
Au contrare! He really did create major civil works and made
government efficient...
Post by Andre LievenWhen one starts to claim that a well known liar was speaking truths,
well, I don't know how to address that, other than to point out the
massive fallaciousness thats involved.
Yes, and FDR got dragged into WWII and Stalin was an honest guy
and Kerry really was in Cambodia for Christmas while Nixon was president. :-)
Hitler was a liar but what made him monstrous was his position
of ethnic cleansing and starting a world war of destruction.
Stalin was saved by history only in that he **cked up with
his own plans.
Post by Andre LievenOh, and I have read that book, thank you. In context, of course.
Because, I really want to learn things, and not just buy into
them on Faith. On *any* issue.
Yeah yeah yeah, keep telling yourself that.
Or do you really want to learn things in order to rationalize
and better defend views and opinions you enjoying believing?
Hey, I am honest about the beliefs I prefer and also willing
to accept I may be mistaken.
Seriously, the biggest mistake a lot of eggheads make is in their
belief that if only they read just one more book or study, then,
by golly, they'll have the wisdom necessary to change any mind!
The problem with that is that any position you can't summarize in
5 minutes isn't going to change most people's minds anyway.
Not because they're stupid, but because they have a simple fundamental
reason for a particular position and if you don't address it,
you're sunk. And the more complex your position is, even if you
have a ton of cites (and perhaps BECAUSE you have a ton of cites),
the more questionable it becomes that you haven't just stuffed
your position with a ton of crap.
Post by Andre LievenSo, show me an empiracally measurable better way, and I'll listen.
Yeah yeah yeah. I think it's clear in several instances above
that you didn't listen to the points I made. That's cool.
This is a debate. Only I'm honest enough to admit that. That's
several points in my favor.
Post by Andre LievenBut, empty claims, ones at *variance* with the economic facts of
today, well, thats not that.
Andre
As I said, the jobs reports and stock market are going great.
Show me a cite that shows jobs are being lost and the stock market
is going down since the election.
regards,
Mark Sobolewski