The comments weren't just about Cuban health care... and agian, the problem with companies is that they "drop" paitents that are too expensive.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
It begins: Government can now seize your company, decide your CEO.
- Thread starter Deck Knight
- Start date
Define efficient.
Québec nationalized alcohol, the institution is called the SAQ (Société des Alcools du Québec) and has become quite a milk cow for the government over the years. Being one big buyer allows all their stores to have an awesome selection of bottles compared to their provincial neighbours. Being one huge buyer allows them to buy more and thus save more. A dozen will always cost less than 2 times 6 and much less than 6 times 1.
Québec nationalized gambling, that never stopped people to gamble in our government-owned casinos or stopped people from buying lottery tickets, but it insures it ALL goes back in their pockets.
Québec nationalized hydro-electricity, likely the province's #1 natural ressource, insuring at the same time very affordable electric bills to all its residents and a great amount of income revenues from the extra we sell to our neighbours in Canada and the States, at a higher price of course. Companies in Québec get an even greater deal as they get what could be seen as tax breaks (electricity credit) from it.
I'd call that efficient nationalizing.
If like our neighbours we didn't nationalize alcool, our selling spots would not offer the wide selection we now offer.
If like our neighbours we didn't nationalize gambling, we couldn't insure the extra money all goes back into our pockets.
If like our neighbours we didn't nationalize energy, we would pay much higher electricity bill (elsewhere : a tax by private corporations) and we couldn't use this ressource as a method to give energy credit breaks to our companies.
I am using that video becuse it talks about Cuba, but the rest of the video is relevant to what we are talking about. Watch and learn something.
This is the specific one to watch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=refrYKq9tZQ&feature=related
This is the specific one to watch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=refrYKq9tZQ&feature=related
I watched and learned something
As an attempt to lash on 'free' health care, this video had the audacity to mention France and yet follow with Britland's rationed system and Canada's waiting lines.
So what did I learn from your video? That free health care has more problems than benefits.
Yet France seems to have none of those mentionned problems. Its citizens don't feel their services are rationed and they don't wait in line. There still is a compulsory health tax aiming to privide near free health care for every french resident though. There is a very high level of satisfaction towards their system. Why didn't the video want me to also learn that?
The World Health Organization ranked France #1 when it comes to health care systems efficiency (to the United States's #37).
On a slightly related note, John Q is one of my favorite movies.
As an attempt to lash on 'free' health care, this video had the audacity to mention France and yet follow with Britland's rationed system and Canada's waiting lines.
So what did I learn from your video? That free health care has more problems than benefits.
Yet France seems to have none of those mentionned problems. Its citizens don't feel their services are rationed and they don't wait in line. There still is a compulsory health tax aiming to privide near free health care for every french resident though. There is a very high level of satisfaction towards their system. Why didn't the video want me to also learn that?
The World Health Organization ranked France #1 when it comes to health care systems efficiency (to the United States's #37).
On a slightly related note, John Q is one of my favorite movies.
Moore put the French in the same group with Canada, Britain and Cuba, but they are not the same. They don't have the same problems because they are not the same system, he is comparing apples and oranges. After further reading on the issue, France appears to be running their Health care in a good way. It appears that the Government is taking the place of the insurance provider but the doctors and everything else is still private. Also the French are fixing the main issues that we see here with procedures being over priced and the ridiculously high amount of law suits against doctors. After reading this article, I approve of the French's method. They have the patients pay a higher deductible for the things they are not in dire need of and for extra things they want but the things they need to stay alive are provided for free or at a low cost, and that is the key. Their plan shows properties of both Privet and Public and that is what works and shows a proper balance. The doctors and equipment are still given room for the competition that is needed for the quality to improve. Removing the private aspect of it entirely takes away any chance of improving health care technology as John went over on his special. If you watched the whole video, that $300 dollar pill did not need to be $300. If there is no competition, that pill will remain at its price because someone is going to pay for it. If only one option is available, nothing is going to change.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_28/b4042070.htm
After reading that article and watching Stossel's video, the French are kinda implementing what he was talking about and it appears to work for the most part. He stressed on the prices being too high and the need to shop around and that taking the private aspects out of the system would hurt it more, the French seem to have covered those.
However, really high taxes are not necessarily a plus.
On your slightly related note, I liked John Q and felt it was a great movie. His situation sucks for anyone to be in, but he kind of got screwed by his employer and insurance company in the beginning.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_28/b4042070.htm
After reading that article and watching Stossel's video, the French are kinda implementing what he was talking about and it appears to work for the most part. He stressed on the prices being too high and the need to shop around and that taking the private aspects out of the system would hurt it more, the French seem to have covered those.
However, really high taxes are not necessarily a plus.
On your slightly related note, I liked John Q and felt it was a great movie. His situation sucks for anyone to be in, but he kind of got screwed by his employer and insurance company in the beginning.
Free markets rarely work, because although on paper it is the 'voluntary exchange of goods and services', in reality this is utter bullshit considering the only voluntary choice is between starvation and meagre wages.
Railing against tax cuts for the rich is a completely legitimate demand. Opposing tax cuts is a result of neither ignorance nor envy, but fundamentally because to assist those cut off from opportunities by capitalism, it is necessary to undergo wealth distribution from the rich to the poor. In the past 30 years, Republicans and Democrats alike have set off policies which made wealth go the other way, and this resulted in inflation-adjusted income LOSSES for most American families. Unregulated, liberal capitalism inherently creates social classes; those whose family leaves behind great wealth are naturally favored, and the profit and greed motives of these people effectively destroy any real opportunity for poorer classes to excel. It is necessary for a progressive tax rate and a welfare system to create greater social equity.
Even if you don't believe in social justice, a progressive tax rate has a lot of practical uses, such as a check against economic expansion, social harmony, etc. This is not to say I believe Barack Obama is doing the right things; the government, certainly, should be less concerned with tax cuts and 'bailouts', and instead focus on efficient nationalization, better wealth redistribution, and long-term problems.
One of the flaws of conservatism is that while they say government spending is inherently inefficient, they also champion the idea that democratic governments represent the will of the people. The fact of the matter is that in any democratic government, the government will primarily aim to serve the majority of people, that is the working class and the middle class. This idea is fundamental to democracy. The idea that capitalists, who hoard money and engage in little productive activity, can distribute money better than a government voted by the people is, frankly, quite silly. The profit-driven interests of the capitalist class cannot and will never represent the will of the majority.
Railing against tax cuts for the rich is a completely legitimate demand. Opposing tax cuts is a result of neither ignorance nor envy, but fundamentally because to assist those cut off from opportunities by capitalism, it is necessary to undergo wealth distribution from the rich to the poor. In the past 30 years, Republicans and Democrats alike have set off policies which made wealth go the other way, and this resulted in inflation-adjusted income LOSSES for most American families. Unregulated, liberal capitalism inherently creates social classes; those whose family leaves behind great wealth are naturally favored, and the profit and greed motives of these people effectively destroy any real opportunity for poorer classes to excel. It is necessary for a progressive tax rate and a welfare system to create greater social equity.
Even if you don't believe in social justice, a progressive tax rate has a lot of practical uses, such as a check against economic expansion, social harmony, etc. This is not to say I believe Barack Obama is doing the right things; the government, certainly, should be less concerned with tax cuts and 'bailouts', and instead focus on efficient nationalization, better wealth redistribution, and long-term problems.
One of the flaws of conservatism is that while they say government spending is inherently inefficient, they also champion the idea that democratic governments represent the will of the people. The fact of the matter is that in any democratic government, the government will primarily aim to serve the majority of people, that is the working class and the middle class. This idea is fundamental to democracy. The idea that capitalists, who hoard money and engage in little productive activity, can distribute money better than a government voted by the people is, frankly, quite silly. The profit-driven interests of the capitalist class cannot and will never represent the will of the majority.
Ridiculous.
First off, it's a blatant exaggeration to suggest that all wages are meagre. And given the success of professional artists, lawyers, sportspersons, etc, it is not only the "capitalists", whom you seem to suggest as being those who get their money from oppressing ordinary workers, who earn a decent income. And even if "meagre wages" is the only choice, that thus not preclude "voluntary exchange of goods and services": you still choose what to spend your "meagre wages" on.
How does opportunities "cut off" people from opportunity? If anything, capitalism creates opportunity by providing a means for those who have no goods of their own to begin with to acquire goods.
Also, you imply that wealth distribution has to be forced by the government. Yet there are many philanthropic organisations who help others of their own accord. And it is argued that, because it is their money rather than someone else's money, they will spend it more wisely and therefore achieve better results than government redistribution.
Even assuming that social classes are created, I disagree with your assessment that those who inherit great wealth are naturally favoured; a lot depends on their work ethic, and willingness to create more wealth for themselves. If they take their wealth for granted (quite likely as they did not lift a finger to attain it), then those below them with greater "profit motives" and drive will overtake them. This is an opportunity for poorer classes to excel.
I am not entirely dismissing the usefulness of the welfare system. But I believe that it should be merely a safety net, rather than a driver for "social equity" (whatever that means), and definitely not a replacement for hard work.
Why is a check against economic expansion necessary? Also, social harmony? AFAIK, the only government I know that's explicitly trying is the Communist Government in China (and ironically, they're trying to do this via economic expansion).
"Flaw"? Where is the "flaw" in criticising something's weaknesses whilst recognising its strengths? Sounds more like an honest appraisal more than anything.
No-one disputes this. But how do you go from that to this:
Even assuming that governments aim to serve the majority of people, that doesn't mean that they can do it well. Also the idea that capitalists "hoard" money directly contradicts your following statement:
"Profit-driven" capitalists do not "hoard" money precisely because hoarding money gives little to no return. They make profits by investing it, which leads to employment opportunities for the majority. Hence, their interests do align when businesses are investing in such a way. The main problem is really how dificult it is to maintain this alignment of interests in a large corporation.
People DO have meagre wages. Look at Minimum wage in comparison to CEOs. Not all people working at minimum wage had a choice to, it's that capitalism did not give them the oppurtunity. They can't get enough money to go to college, and just because they are not inherently smart as others (but still smarter than some of those in higher positions), they were not able to get a scholarship.
Again, the capitalism of today requires higher education. Until everyone has access to higher education, oppurtunities will continually be cut off.
People don't just willingly give up money that commonly anymore. Tough times are when people are least willing to give up their money, but when the poor need it most.
Again, our system has created such a difference level between the top and the bottom that it is nearly impossible for them to just jump, and even those that do make up such an insignificantly small portion of the minority. Capitalism keeps the rich, rich, and the poor, poor.
We all know social equality will never happen - so I agree, it should be a safety net. Yet now, it does not act like one - as I said, the rich are thousands upon thousands times more wealthy than the poor.
Communism (as of today) leads to dictatorship, or something like it, we can't use that at all. As I said, we don't need social equality/harmony, we need more even social status, and social stability.
And who says companies do it better. Look at the mess they caused now.
No, they invest it, further making the rich richer, and the poor, poorer. It equals pretty much the same thing as hoarding - they take the money they made and make twice as much with it. The poor have siginificantly less money, so the rich will always get richer more than the poor will get richer.
Unless there is a particular reason why you are using "meagre" and "meagre" makes wages as bad as starvation, the word is unnecessary.
In a purely capitalistic system* your choice is between starvation and work. You don't work, you don't eat.
*No such system is in place anywhere, only rough approximations.
No, it isn't. It is begrudging other people the money their employer pays them. People who rail against "the rich" are puppets of redistributionists who have not put one single brain cell to work on the matter.
Before you respond with some other pablum about people making "too much money" and "systemic inequity" I need you to answer two questions:
1. Do people deserve the money they earn?
2. How do you define rich?
Can you name a single person "cut off from opportunities" other than some vacuous collective "poor?" What is poor? In America, poor is a single home, a single car, a television, a cell phone, and three meals a day.
The United States has the most upward social mobility of any country. Your post leads me to believe that you think "the Top X percent" is a never-changing group of aristocrats rather than a bracket for identifying income. There will always be economic classes. Systems which try to abolish economic classes tend to succeed though: they create a single economic class that is poorer than the poor in a nation with definable economic classes.
A government cannot create social justice, only employ coercion.
The progressive income tax is the most horrendous burden on success ever devised. The fact it needed a constitutional amendment to become legal should be an indication its implementation was never intended. The only purpose for such a tax is to destroy prosperity.
Wealth redistribution is a euphemism. The only thing the government has been redistributing in the bailouts and stimulus is poverty. Namely they are making us as poor as GM and AIG by continually propping them up with our money.
That is not a flaw, that is a basic truth. One has to do with the reality that government is a middleman who spends other people's money, the other is a statement on the responsibility of elected officials. The two have nothing to do with each other.
Your elected representatives do represent your community, but the mechanism they use for funding projects is also the least efficient. Therefore they should only be allowed to allocate funds for those things impossible for private enterprise to reasonably cover, such as public road construction and universal police/fire departments. Private companies can provide either of those things for a single client more efficiently, but not to every member of a population.
Wern't you just talking about how the government only works to serve the interest of the rich?
I would like you to point out to me some of these capitalists and explain to me how you have come to the conclusion what they do is unproductive.
Furthermore, the chief difference between capitalists and government is that capitalists spend their own money, governments spend other people's money. Therefore even if capitalists are as greedy and unproductive as you posit, it is none of your business as to how they distribute their own wealth.
The will of the majority of people is irrelevant when spending your own money. Private companies represent their own interests, government supposedly represents the will of the people. I am astounded that you confuse the two.
Let me just say that I find your views absolutely repugnant, vile, and evil; you are the defender of ideas and theories that have been debunked over and over again, both in theory and in reality, and it is a source of disgust that any person can even still believe in these ideas.
This is theoretically and factually untrue. Period.
Again, don't work, don't eat. The person with meager wages is better off than the king at the turn of the century. And this is with the state actively redistributing wealth from the poor to the rich. Ultimately, labor has value, and
Please define what opportunities. I need specifics here, not emotive ranting. And then tell me what are caused by actual capitalism, and not by the hodgepodge of governmental policies that stifle free exchange.
You are right, but this is a result of government, not capitalism. Or do you believe the "deregulation" claptrap? In fact, it is the most regulated sectors of the economy which have failed so disastrously!
Tell me how many of the Fortune 500 had Fortune 500 fathers. Or grandfathers. Certainly not the guy at the top of the list. In fact, the area of society with the most nepotism is...government!
Describe how this done. This is more inaccurate emotive ranting. Poor people are held back largely because of a government legal system that often does discriminate in favor of the wealthy, government regulations that impede the ability of the poorest to acquire capital by essentially pricing it out of a wage-earner's ability to pay, and government incentives that subsidize non-achievement and poor-decision making (if i'm a 17 year old high school drop out with a baby, do I marry that 18 year old working on his GED, or do I tell him to fuck off and commence popping out more kids to get more government benefits? Of course, the former option is how inter generational capital is built.)
...whatever...
How do you think the capitalist makes money? I dunno, by providing products that meet people's wants and needs? I honestly hope to god you are trolling. I am really fed up with these baseless anticapitalist arguments with zero basis in reality, or based on faulty theories. History disagrees with you. Economics disagrees with you. Common sense disagrees with you. I'm too damn tired to give stronger responses to your "points", but if you're willing you can look through this thread or read mises.org or something. Just somehow divest yourself of these ignorant beliefs as soon as possible; you'll be a lot smarter for it.
Ancien... my post contains alot of the answers you are demanding.
The reason for government redistribution of wealth (not all, just some) is to make sure the people who are extremely poor can get out of where they are if they want to.
The reason for government redistribution of wealth (not all, just some) is to make sure the people who are extremely poor can get out of where they are if they want to.
What if they are extremely poor because they went out and squandered their money on an overpriced car they could not afford and decked it out with huge gold rims, then spent the rest on booze and weed?
Some people are poor because they have made poor decisions. Some people like the way they live and refuse to change. Quite frankly there are people who exist who deserve to be poor and any compassion directed at them is foolish. Worse still when that "compassion" is a government trough that, when it finds itself exhausted from the burglary of its resources by sharks, cons, and scammers, demands a larger budget and more lax qualifications to dispense the aid.
At that point it ceases to be a "safety net" and instead becomes a public rot: the people who need it cannot get it and the people who get it continue to squander it.
Poverty is not a virtue unto itself. Blessed are the poor in spirit, not in materials.
Not all poor are formed like this and you know it. Some just happen to fall into the situation with no fault of their own.
I did a Euro essay on this recently. There are 2 options - to give money to the poor or not. Of those who chose to give money to the poor, some chose regardless, and others chose to eliminate those who had been lazy. Rather than go the "don't give money to the poor" route, why don't you go the "determine which ones are lazy and which are not" route.
Again, the poor will not squander it, only the lazy will. And not all poor are lazy.
Yes, but we still try to help them don't we. You don't just leave people out there; in order to be a good citizen, it is your duty to help other members of the community.
Yes they do, and I don't oppose some sort of social safety net in that very limited circumstance. That's why there are unemployment taxes on employers. Every other form of welfare is largely unnecessary.
Because that's not the way the government works. When Clinton instituted workfare the welfare rolls fell because you actually had to be seeking work and prove it to remain on the rolls. So how was it the workfare part wasn't previously implemented? Well, it has been taken out again in recent legislation. Basically it waxes and wanes based on how "compassionate" the current executive deems himself. The lower his standards the more the rot grows. Once you have a "throw money at the problem" kind of executive, there is no end to the rot and abuse.
Scammers are notoriously industrious at working the system. They make time for nothing else.
In order to be a good citizen all I have to do is obey the law. Anything else I choose to do is none of your or the government's concern. When I have the resources I give plenty of my time and money to charity or other good works. Government is not a charity and even if it were, it would be so horribly inefficient that I'd never even consider it. Why would I choose to give to something where only 3 cents of every dollar goes to the cause I support and the other 97 cents are sucked into a bureaucratic black hole?
1. Rarely, since capitalism inherently creates social classes. You can bullshit about none of the Fortune 500 CEOs came from the aristocratic class, but the fact is that they came from the upper-middle class at worst. Don’t try to justify how Paris Hilton and the rest of them deserve the wealth; they did not earn their money through a meritocratic, social-classless capitalism (which, by nature of the capitalist system, cannot exist). For the poorest of classes, there is limited opportunity given the need for high education to succeed in modern society, and thus are trapped in their poverty.
2. There is not really a figure for this but I believe it would be about an income of 250,000 a year.
Everyone living under the poverty line in America, which stands about 12% of the total population, in addition to the lower brackets of income of the middle class. Your definition of poor is a description of the middle- to upper-middle class, and reveals a downright ignorance of the plight some people face.
I don’t have exact figures but I highly doubt the United States has the greatest social mobility. George Carlin: ‘They call it the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it.’ Countries such as Norway and Sweden, due to an effective welfare system, is presently a few of the most just and equal societies, and the standard of living there is on average higher the United States.
As an aside, no system, including Marxism, advocates the abolishment of economic classes, but instead advocates the abolishment of social classes. The most common, and misguided, interpretation of Marxism is Stalinism, and it was precisely because they created inequal social classes that it ultimately failed to bring prosperity to the workers.
This is seriously pathetic. The majority of poor who even do this are compelled by their socio-economic positions. Rich snobs also do little but drink booze and take weed, but because of their family positions they are allowed to do so with little consequences. I am all for a meritocratic system, whereby social mobility and hard work are virtues. In a capitalistic society, however, the man at the factory gains much less, and will always gain much less, than Bill Gates at the top, despite doing much more labor. You can blame it on the worker's lack of innovation or intelligence, but these again are virtues inspired by education and can only really be used when you belong in at least the middle class.
Never said it inherently did, only the failed policies of modern ‘conservatives’ Reagan and Bush.
It is our business as to how they distribute their wealth, because it is through the laborers how they ever achieved their wealth. While you may say the capitalists achieved their wealth by intelligently going through ‘voluntary exchanges’, the workers are in fact forced to accept their constantly-lowering (inflation-adjusted) wages or otherwise face starvation. By such an arrangement, capitalists extort great profit doing little productive labor. Of course, today there are unions to prevent blatant exploitation, thank God.
This is a result of deregulation policies of Reagan, extended by other presidents. The chief cause of this recession is bubbles in the economy: in the housing market, in the financial market, etc, all fueled by deregulation policies. I don’t see the debate here.
The most regulated sectors of the economy have ‘failed disastrously’ because the regulations were not effective and efficient, not because regulations are inherently bad. So let’s reform regulations to be more efficient.
Life inherently creates social classes. Some people spend more frugally than others. Do you know of an economic system that does not create social classes? If so your criticism of capitalism is valid, if not then your issue with capitalism is meaningless.
But the Forune 500 CEOs are not the only 500 successful people in America. Arguably if you go from lower class to upper middle class then you have upward social mobility. It's really rather irrelevant how far you make it up as long as you move upward. I know of few people who would have a problem ending their life as upper-middle class.
Higher education is so prevalent as to be worthless. What we need is to refocus resources on the sciences and stop stigmatizing trade schools as inferior. That will in and of itself solve many problems with our current allocation of resources.
Individual or family? What if they live in an expensive neighborhood with a "compassionate" government that taxes them at 60%? I do like however that you have made up an arbitrary number to define rich. Why isn't it 200,000? 150,000? 100,000? I mean, why 250,000?
I guess $250,000 is the number redistributionist busybodies think will earn them the least scorn.
No, you are ignorant of the prosperity in America. People in truly poor nations come to America and wonder where the poor people are. More people below the poverty line in America die from obesity than starvation. Your faux concern for the poor aside, I doubt very much you care for their "plight" any more than I just because you are grossly ignorant of the difference between private money and public money.
Didn't George Carlin have a degree in late-night comedy? I hear Jim Carrey and Jenny McCarthy say vaccinations cause autism. Clearly since they are celebrities they must be right.
No, it was precisely because The Communist Manifesto points out an evil social class: The bourgeoisie, and pits them against a good social class: The proletariat, that scumbags of every stripe have used it to rile up a mob of populism, take over a nation on a wave of anger, and set up gulags with their newly acquired emergency powers. That is why Commies are called Reds: They always leave a trail of blood behind.
Blame the problem. The poor have no free will. They are subhumans incapable of free will. But you know better for them, don't you?
Social mobility and hard work are virtues in a capitalistic system. In a capitalistic system if you create something someone else wants you will succeed unhindered by those "compassionate" folks who believe they can better spend your money than you can.
I would love to know where you got the notion that factory work is still a large labor sector in America. Unless you are defining labor as a very crude "work requiring much brute strength and minimal mental focus," I fail to see how you can claim Bill Gates does or did "less labor" than any of his employees.
Furthermore, there are a huge number of immigrants who came to America poor and unskilled, who raised there children to value hard work, intelligent thought, and innovation. In what world do you live in where your economic class is the sole determinant of your values?
"Conservative" is right in Bush's case. Reagan however pulled us out of the economic and foreign tailspin left for him by Jimmy Carter.
This is utter bullshit. My mother started her own company and put in loads of labor and sweat equity. Only when the work became too great for one person did she get a bigger office and hire another person. You live in a Marxist fairy tale where employers discovered their companies presumably by magic and exist solely to exploit their workers and personally enrich themselves. You are the kind of person who should never be given power or trust in any matter of importance. You believe that everyone's money is the government's money. By what right is it your business what anyone does with their own money? Because you are compassionate? Because you are a good person? Because you care? Because it personally pains your soul that someone, somewhere may be getting fired today and despite your utter ignorance of the circumstances, you believe it fundamentally wrong?
Get serious.
How can you believe a government is compassionate if you believe people exist to exploit others? Government is comprised of people. If people are malevolent, than by extension government must be. Your positions are self-contradictory and inherently illogical. You see the boogieman of the employer everywhere yet believe the largest employer in a nation, a bloated, redistributionist government, is benign. Further you extol the virtues of unions as if the boss of the union is somehow a different class of boss than the boss of the factory.
How are workers forced to accept their wages? Has no one in your life ever changed jobs? Do you believe human beings are automatons incapable of assessing a bad situation and innovating a way to solve it?
Oh wait, you must believe the only people capable of any innovation whatsoever are those in the upper-middle class. Everyone else is either a business owner and therefore a vile exploiter or a poor, uneducated, astoundingly ignorant moron who must be protected by those saintly few that establish unions.
You really believe unions prevent blatant exploitation? What prae tell does a union boss actually do? Does a union boss actually create anything? No. A Union Boss takes dues and forwards them to his favored political party. A Union Boss slows the efficient allocation of resources by protecting the unproductive. A Union Boss inflates wages beyond their productive value.
Notice the failure of the American Auto Industry. Why have Japanese companies flourished while US Auto has tanked? Because American auto-workers in Japanese companies based in America aren't being paid $40 an hour for an activity that produces $30 of value an hour. They are being paid $25 an hour for an activity that produces $30 of value an hour.
What century do you hail from, sir? This isn't 1860 Britain. Unions are a bloated, useless anachronism now that exist only to maintain themselves and their political power.
Yes, these industries, the most regulated industries in America, the industries who most likely got hit with Sarbanes-Oxley a few years ago, suffered from serious "deregulation" issues.
Regulations exist to exchange efficiency for safety. The idea you can make an efficient regulation is preposterous, unless you're talking quality control policies, which are generally internal anyway.
Any Americans that voted for Obama, I stand before the highest court in the Universe, accusing you in front of its inhabitants, of High Treason.
Thank you. Thank you very much, you Democrats.
No wonder they had an ass for their symbol.
Thank you. Thank you very much, you Democrats.
No wonder they had an ass for their symbol.
Accusment of Treason requires lots of evidence... evidence you do not have.
Your insult is to be blunt (and that's the only way I can say it)- rubbish. What does it matter what difference the party symbols are. You should be more worried that people will vote for their party's canidate just because he is a member of their party.
Next time, please back your post with more tangible evidence, that way I can at least debate back.
You need only look at track records from Democrats.
This act is not enough? You gave him unreasonable power knowingly, knowing that the Democrats have a near fillibuster-proof majority, with the backing of people who called him "saviour" "our father" "the dawn of a new age" "the promised one" "he who shall bring peace". You knew about this, and if you were not aware of this, and you were brought in by the hypnotic garbage, you should not have even voted, as you had no right to vote based on desperation. That was not the intention of our founding fathers. In fact, to discourage impulse voting, rash decision making, and desperation moves, poll taxes were put in, as well as literacy tests. These would not be bad if everyone had to take them, and its about time they were put in to prevent future mistakes.
This act is not enough? You gave him unreasonable power knowingly, knowing that the Democrats have a near fillibuster-proof majority, with the backing of people who called him "saviour" "our father" "the dawn of a new age" "the promised one" "he who shall bring peace". You knew about this, and if you were not aware of this, and you were brought in by the hypnotic garbage, you should not have even voted, as you had no right to vote based on desperation. That was not the intention of our founding fathers. In fact, to discourage impulse voting, rash decision making, and desperation moves, poll taxes were put in, as well as literacy tests. These would not be bad if everyone had to take them, and its about time they were put in to prevent future mistakes.
To be fair, its not as if John McCain was a great alternative. Essentially I ended up voting against Obama rather than for McCain. Palin was a decent pull, but really, VP isn't that important. Short of pissing off every feminist in the country (moreso than their usual hyper-sensitive, triggerpoint selves), it wouldn't have impacted policy much.
Not that my vote matters much in Massachusetts. If Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, or Barney Frank were to die between the time you can take your name off the ballot and the day of the election, they would still be elected by huge margins posthumously.
No, but McCain might not have convinced everyone that this was a good idea. Its Obama's mere presence that acts as an excuse for changing the laws. Had McCain tried pulling this, Pelosi might not have been so quick to say "lets go", and might have stalled it long enough.
What EVIDENCE do you have that Obama will be bad. You don't. You don't know how he will act, so this post is entirely pointless.
I'm not even old enough to vote. But I supported him. Why? Not because my parents are democrats (and even then, one's a republican), not because my peers supported him, but because I knew he would at least TRY to get something done.
Literary Tests and Poll Taxes are honestly the WORST way I have heard to eliminate impulse voting. It's going to be the more educated who will be suceptable to impulse voting. So these tests would be a ridiculous waste of time, and prevent people who deserve voting rights, from voting.
The Literary Test and Voting Tax were used to restrict the poor before - just keep that in mind.
This operates under the assumption that Obama has made no campaign promises and had no voting record, associations, or history. The idea that you elect a president without a reasonable expectation of how they will act is absurd. What do you think a campaign is about if not telegraphing what you will do if elected? This is all it really took for me to decide the man is insane. The fact he has proven himself weak and pliable in foreign affairs hasn't made me cringe any less. I imagine it will be exceedingly easy for Russia to get our ICBM's offline and also purchase back Alaska as an added incentive for how much Obama trusts the Russians.
Really? You supported him on the basis he would try to get something done? And what was this "something" that you were yearning for? What you got was government takeover of a private company, a complete embarrassment to America abroad (bow to King Abdullah, cheesy, pathetic gifts, getting steamrolled by every other nation in any international discussion), and an incoherent economic plan at home.
If you supported Obama because he would try, he doesn't seem to be trying very hard at this whole "President of the United States" thing he signed up for. McCain was no prize package, but he wouldn't be caught dead extending a deep bow to a Middle-Eastern monarch, sending DVD's as a gift to a head of state (in the wrong format, no less!), and in general being the butt of every single joke in the European continent. Europe hated and respected us before. Now they hate us and laugh at us.
I'm of the mind that voting should be made more difficult, not less. If you are not registered well in advance of the election you do not deserve to vote. You should be forced to show valid ID, you should be forced to be registered well before the primary or election, and all attempts to implement same-day voting should be crushed. Elections are only free if they make all attempts to stamp out the kind of vote fraud same-day registration enables.
Your support for an empty suit with an impossible promise on the basis he will "try" does not give me comfort. Are teenagers truly that easy to sucker nowadays? If a man promises to part the seas and heal the planet(1:20), does not something in your brain tell you not to trust the man as far as you can throw him?