[Mr_Canada]

It's depressing.

This is why 40% of Canadian teenagers view the USA as dangerous.

Because when ever the government wants to utterly destroy another country and ruin millions of lives, everyone is all for it. But when they want to modernize and fix the social problems caused by their overzealous plutocratic capitalism, the movement is ripped apart and mocked, then forgotten as it is bogged down and slowed, before eventually being killed.

That's the issue with America.

You fuck up problems outside your country, and you fuck up problems in your country.

I don't know why the world even bothers giving their opinion to such a hopeless people. You're screwed - good job.

[N_Fiddledog]

DerbyX wrote:

Why start over? He has a great plan and if it needs a few tweaks then he can do that. Its republican sour grapes is all.

It's only a great plan if you don't listen to the valid critiques, such as what Ryan offered. There are others.

Quote:

What makes Ryan right and Obama wrong?

Why should I plug my ears, and accept either as God's truth without listening to the other. Ryan made some good points. I'm still waiting to hear Obama explain why they're not.

Quote:

Oh, btw the public support thing you mentioned before (on another thread) and like to tout about proof over how wrong Obamas health care bill is.

Which? You mean polls like these...

http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/healthplan.php

or this...

Quote:

WASHINGTON - Despite his public-relations blitz over the past two weeks to promote his plans to reform the nation's health-care system — including holding two town halls on Wednesday — President Barack Obama has lost ground on this issue with the American public, according to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

Pluralities now say that the president’s health care plan is a bad idea, and that it will result in the quality of their care getting worse. What’s more, just four in 10 approve of his handling on the issue.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32206998/

My point simply was if progressives really want to talk democracy, fine let's talk democracy. Obama hasn't won the issue democratically simply because he won a general election more than a year ago.

Quote:

Shall we compare public support over climate change since that is being used as evidence now?

Fill your boots. Polls show that now the public understands the issue better the majority are against crap and tax.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... he_economy

[andyt]

commanderkai wrote:

True, but that's the point. Politics is the big wall for any sort of reform. Pork and partisan rhetoric of the likes you've mentioned (and expressed) just keeps the system moving as it is. There won't be change without some change in attitudes, and I don't see that until countries start going bankrupt (Greece might be the first of many case studies)

I agree with you here. I'm not a partisan Democrat, or Liberal, (since I'm Canadian). I'm anti-Republicon and Reformacon, in part because of the bullshit they sling about wanting smaller govt. They just want govt money to go to their interests, same as any other party.

My hope, maybe as opposed to yours, is that as govts are forced to take austerity measures is that it starts from the top, with the people actually able to pay, instead of trying to take away what little the people at the bottom have. Otherwise, I don't think it will result in very stable reform - if you have huge gaps between wealthy and poor, with more and more middle class falling toward the bottom, you will never create a civil society. Just spend more and more on trying to control the people by force.

[BartSimpson]

Mr_Canada wrote:

It's depressing.

This is why 40% of Canadian teenagers view the USA as dangerous.

That's okay. We don't give a sh*t about 40% of Canadian teenagers. The other 60% we figure will be working in the US in a few years and we'll be happy to have them.

Mr_Canada wrote:

Because when ever the government wants to utterly destroy another country and ruin millions of lives, everyone is all for it. But when they want to modernize and fix the social problems caused by their overzealous plutocratic capitalism, the movement is ripped apart and mocked, then forgotten as it is bogged down and slowed, before eventually being killed.

Capitalism is a byproduct of freedom and liberty. It is not a philosophy unto itself. As witnessed in China and the former Soviet empire, when people are allowed freedom capitalism springs up all on its own. The problem in the USA is too much government intrusion into business and people's lives. It's kind of ironic that it is far easier to start a new business in Beijing than it is anywhere in North America.

Mr_Canada wrote:

That's the issue with America.

You fuck up problems outside your country, and you fuck up problems in your country.

Worse, we also try to solve problems that aren't problems. Like the "health care crisis" and global warming.

Mr_Canada wrote:

I don't know why the world even bothers giving their opinion to such a hopeless people. You're screwed - good job.

We tend not to pay attention to people who tell us how great their solutions are while their leaders come here for health care, to invest their money, to start careers, and etc. When we see the annual flood of immigrants heading somewhere other than American we will start to take notice that we're doing something wrong. Trust me, we WILL pay attention to that.

[Mr_Canada]

BartSimpson wrote:

That's okay. We don't give a sh*t about 40% of Canadian teenagers. The other 60% we figure will be working in the US in a few years and we'll be happy to have them.

Yuck, then good riddance.

Mr_Canada wrote:

Capitalism is a byproduct of freedom and liberty. It is not a philosophy unto itself. As witnessed in China and the former Soviet empire, when people are allowed freedom capitalism springs up all on its own. The problem in the USA is too much government intrusion into business and people's lives. It's kind of ironic that it is far easier to start a new business in Beijing than it is anywhere in North America.

And those totalitarian empires are doing fantastic. Workers in slave shops and the like, oh god the profit motive brings out the best in people!

Mr_Canada wrote:

Worse, we also try to solve problems that aren't problems. Like the "health care crisis" and global warming.

Hey, you're right. Those millions of people you are cool with just letting die? Fuck them. Who cares if they are your own compatriots, they're poorer than you and disagree with your system, gosh I hope they rot in hell!

Mr_Canada wrote:

We tend not to pay attention to people who tell us how great their solutions are while their leaders come here for health care, to invest their money, to start careers, and etc. When we see the annual flood of immigrants heading somewhere other than American we will start to take notice that we're doing something wrong. Trust me, we WILL pay attention to that.

Annual flood of immigrants heading somewhere other then America?

*What*!

[commanderkai]

andyt wrote:

I agree with you here. I'm not a partisan Democrat, or Liberal, (since I'm Canadian). I'm anti-Republicon and Reformacon, in part because of the bullshit they sling about wanting smaller govt. They just want govt money to go to their interests, same as any other party.

My point is that many political figures and citizenry probably DO want smaller/slimmer/minimal government, but the political system in place makes it nigh impossible to cut programs. Therefore, I see "smaller government" as more of a sign to not expand government in realms that governments traditionally were not involved in.

Quote:

My hope, maybe as opposed to yours, is that as govts are forced to take austerity measures is that it starts from the top, with the people actually able to pay, instead of trying to take away what little the people at the bottom have. Otherwise, I don't think it will result in very stable reform - if you have huge gaps between wealthy and poor, with more and more middle class falling toward the bottom, you will never create a civil society. Just spend more and more on trying to control the people by force.

There will ALWAYS be huge gaps between rich and poor. Taxing the rich won't help the poor because the rich have the mobility to transfer their wealth and manipulate the tax system. The middle class are always burdened since they had the dispensable income while not having the large amounts of wealth to be mobile. Small business owners, for example, is a traditional case of somebody with wealth, but without mobility.

On top of this, taxing corporations (which I assume you consider being on the top) also have the mobility to move their wealth to areas where it won't be taxed as much. Canadian Steamship Lines, as an example, used flags of convenience to escape tougher laws and taxes in Canada. Companies who do not have the mobility commonly cut workers or add to prices, which, *drumroll* burdens the middle class the most.

Attempting to shrink the gap won't solve anything. Taxing the middle class more to give them more services makes them poorer on an individual level, since they don't keep enough or as much wealth to further their growth as individuals and families. Making a massive reform that attempts to burden the rich will, in reality, burden the middle class.

[BartSimpson]

Mr_Canada wrote:

And those totalitarian empires are doing fantastic. Workers in slave shops and the like, oh god the profit motive brings out the best in people!

I don't disagree that there are businesses taking advantage of the conditions in totalitarian and authoritarian states and most days such things p*ss me off just the same as they do you.

But then I am forced to have to look at China where the government has had to allow more and more freedom to facilitate capitalism. Now the people in China are starting to stand up to their masters not to demand more freedom to conduct business, but to demand freedom for its own sake. The Clinton-era "Let's do biz w China becuz it will free them" thing I opposed because it meant US jobs would be lost...and they were. But I have to admit that the Clintonistas were right that the result would be a freer China. And a free China is not going to be a threat to the US, India, or anyone else. In the long run it's good for everyone. The same thing is now taking place in Vietnam, too.

But what about Burma? Nigeria? North Korea?

I don't honestly know.

But we can hope that doing business with these countries exposes their people to radical ideas like not putting up with someone's sh*t just because he calls himself "Supreme Leader".

[DerbyX]

N_Fiddledog wrote:

It's only a great plan if you don't listen to the valid critiques, such as what Ryan offered. There are others.

No plan will be without critics. What about all the valid critiques about the current US system that spurred this reform? What about all the valid critiques of all the valid critiques? What about the valid critiques of the system the republicans propose? What about the possibility the critiques are misplaced?

N_Fiddledog wrote:

Why should I plug my ears, and accept either as God's truth without listening to the other. Ryan made some good points. I'm still waiting to hear Obama explain why they're not.

I'm still waiting to hear why I should consider the critiques as valid when the same people making them argue our system is wrong and they are quite clearly incorrect about that.

N_Fiddledog wrote:

Which? You mean polls like these...

This point counts double; for here and your cap & trade post. Why does the public oppose Obamacare?

This is a good piece the delves into the uncertainty of the bill driving down support.

N_Fiddledog wrote:

My point simply was if progressives really want to talk democracy, fine let's talk democracy. Obama hasn't won the issue democratically simply because he won a general election more than a year ago.

That can be said for any number of issues the GOP pushed through without proper debate. Debate is going on. You seem intent on assigning a much higher likelihood to the republican concerns then the democrat answers. The teabaggers certainly aren't about democracy and from day one have dismissed Obamacare as socialist claptrap forced on them by lefties.

N_Fiddledog wrote:

Fill your boots. Polls show that now the public understands the issue better the majority are against crap and tax.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... he_economy

I said support for climate change not the cap and trade political plan. There is a big difference.

http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/010903.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... poll_N.htm

Oh hell, I could post massive evidence for polls supporting the science behind global warming and the need for government action (even if people don't agree what action should be taken).

My point was that you can't use polls to support your argument that Obama is doing it wrong when you so clearly claim that regardless of polls the world is not only wrong about global warming but that they are wrong in the way they are addressing it.

[Mr_Canada]

BartSimpson wrote:

Mr_Canada wrote:

And those totalitarian empires are doing fantastic. Workers in slave shops and the like, oh god the profit motive brings out the best in people!

I don't disagree that there are businesses taking advantage of the conditions in totalitarian and authoritarian states and most days such things p*ss me off just the same as they do you.

But then I am forced to have to look at China where the government has had to allow more and more freedom to facilitate capitalism. Now the people in China are starting to stand up to their masters not to demand more freedom to conduct business, but to demand freedom for its own sake. The Clinton-era "Let's do biz w China becuz it will free them" thing I opposed because it meant US jobs would be lost...and they were. But I have to admit that the Clintonistas were right that the result would be a freer China. And a free China is not going to be a threat to the US, India, or anyone else. In the long run it's good for everyone. The same thing is now taking place in Vietnam, too.

But what about Burma? Nigeria? North Korea?

I don't honestly know.

But we can hope that doing business with these countries exposes their people to radical ideas like not putting up with someone's sh*t just because he calls himself "Supreme Leader".

Maybe this is just because I care about the People more then I care about the Leaders and their little issues they have with other Leaders.

I am absolutely fine with "Freedom". But I disagree with you Anarcho-Capitalists who believe in Capitalism without Order! It's not "Freedom"! Well, maybe for the rich and those running the Slave Shops, but the workers? The people? You're right, at least they aren't slaves to the Government, but now they are slaves to an unregulated, uncontrolled, disgusting Corporation. The only difference to me is that people seem to trust corporations more, perhaps because they're idiots.

China was in the wrong position in the first place, and moving into Capitalism won't make them any better. Just greedier, filthier, and perhaps happier with being slaves to their plutocratic American factory owners.

What I'd simply like to know is HOW on EARTH you Anarcho-Capitalists believe that society will be BETTER if Corporations are given no rules? You would never trust Government with that, and rightly so, so what makes you trust corporations and people with money? Is it the "Dream"? The idea that some poor farm boy can become a billionaire? Is it what keeps you hope is such a corrupt and insane system?

I've had people try to explain this to me piece by piece and it has done nothing but infuriate me. The logic isn't there.

[JJ]

I thought my cartoon was making a pretty clever point, which I wanted to discuss, but we've somehow wound up back in partisan crazyland once again.

[Mr_Canada]

JJ wrote:

I thought my cartoon was making a pretty clever point, which I wanted to discuss, but we've somehow wound up back in partisan crazyland once again.

My apologies.

In any case, it's a really good cartoon, very unbiased, and I agree with it.

[BartSimpson]

Mr_Canada wrote:

Maybe this is just because I care about the People more then I care about the Leaders and their little issues they have with other Leaders.

Oddly enough, this puts you in good company with libertarians and Tea Baggers.

Mr_Canada wrote:

I am absolutely fine with "Freedom". But I disagree with you Anarcho-Capitalists who believe in Capitalism without Order! It's not "Freedom"! Well, maybe for the rich and those running the Slave Shops, but the workers? The people? You're right, at least they aren't slaves to the Government, but now they are slaves to an unregulated, uncontrolled, disgusting Corporation. The only difference to me is that people seem to trust corporations more, perhaps because they're idiots.

I'm an 'anarcho-capitalist'?

Not hardly. I've long supported regulations that create a fair and level playing field in enterprise. I support a lot of environmental regulations, too. What I oppose are the non-sensical regulations like (this is serious) saying that the scent of baking bread is a pollutant that bread bakeries in Sacramento County must mitigate at an atrocious expense. The result is that you can't buy fresh bread in most of Sacramento County anymore, you buy bread trucked in from elsewhere. What I oppose are manufactured "crises" that government forces business to respond to; alar, DDT, global warming, ozone layer, etc.

I also oppose minimum wage because it forces businesses to do away with jobs that unskilled people used to fill. Now those people are a permanent underclass with no hope at all for social mobility.

I'm all for government rules that require businesses to pay an hour's wage for an hour's work. That sounds simplistic, but I recall a time when people had their pay "docked" for a myraid of reasons.

There's a place for government regulation, but when government starts dictating what people I can hire, or requiring me to hire a racial mix of people it oversteps its bounds and then it's off and running to see what else it can control.

Mr_Canada wrote:

China was in the wrong position in the first place, and moving into Capitalism won't make them any better. Just greedier, filthier, and perhaps happier with being slaves to their plutocratic American factory owners.

China does not allow foreign ownership of any business. Try again.

Mr_Canada wrote:

What I'd simply like to know is HOW on EARTH you Anarcho-Capitalists believe that society will be BETTER if Corporations are given no rules? You would never trust Government with that, and rightly so, so what makes you trust corporations and people with money? Is it the "Dream"? The idea that some poor farm boy can become a billionaire? Is it what keeps you hope is such a corrupt and insane system?

I've had people try to explain this to me piece by piece and it has done nothing but infuriate me. The logic isn't there.

Obviously, I believe in rules and laws. I just don't believe in having so many rules and laws that it is virtually impossible for someone to conduct their daily activities without innocently breaking one of them.

[DerbyX]

JJ wrote:

I thought my cartoon was making a pretty clever point, which I wanted to discuss, but we've somehow wound up back in partisan crazyland once again.

That's twice now you have complained that other posters aren't debating the topic in the narrow confined terms you think it is. Don't post in an open forum then. Start a blog that allows you to edit posts you don't think belong or failing that post the topics in the L X D forum and set up the debate criteria in advance. even then you may not find that everybody holds your opinion on what points should and should not be discussed.

For instance, in your "why do some countries elect more gay officials" thread I though homophobia and morality far from being topics you didn't want to be debated were actually the most important factors in that question since it was probably the number one reason.

[Mr_Canada]

BartSimpson wrote:

Oddly enough, this puts you in good company with libertarians and Tea Baggers.

It's the mantra of anyone who wants any sort of public support. It puts me in the company of almost everyone.

Quote:

I'm an 'anarcho-capitalist'?

Not hardly. I've long supported regulations that create a fair and level playing field in enterprise. I support a lot of environmental regulations, too. What I oppose are the non-sensical regulations like (this is serious) saying that the scent of baking bread is a pollutant that bread bakeries in Sacramento County must mitigate at an atrocious expense. The result is that you can't buy fresh bread in most of Sacramento County anymore, you buy bread trucked in from elsewhere. What I oppose are manufactured "crises" that government forces business to respond to; alar, DDT, global warming, ozone layer, etc.

I don't oppose how corporations make their products (unless it's with the blood and sweat of underpaid workers). I also stay away from "Global Warming" and such. But I completely support regulation against pollution because even if it isn't going to "doom" the planet, it's messing up the water and no one likes breathing smog. So I'm fine with less (or none) Global Warming paranoia in dealing with corporations, but health risks must be mandated and forced, regardless of cost. They must, because we can not trust a corporation to do so on their own will. If there was no law on it, I'm not sure the company I work for would have given us our one fire extinguisher.

Quote:

I also oppose minimum wage because it forces businesses to do away with jobs that unskilled people used to fill. Now those people are a permanent underclass with no hope at all for social mobility.

How about a Maximum wage? It would be a very high point, and well past the point of what would leave a family incredibly well off for their lives. You, of course, would disagree with me and my semi-support of guaranteed incomes, so what of some bargaining on the issue. Since I completely oppose the idea that no minimum wage is at all helping the Income Gap shrink.

Quote:

I'm all for government rules that require businesses to pay an hour's wage for an hour's work. That sounds simplistic, but I recall a time when people had their pay "docked" for a myraid of reasons.

There's a place for government regulation, but when government starts dictating what people I can hire, or requiring me to hire a racial mix of people it oversteps its bounds and then it's off and running to see what else it can control.

I agree, rules forcing you to hire because "These people have a certain population, so you must hire this many of them" are simply stupid. I'm against such rules. This is where Stalin's Soviet Union went so wrong - intervening as opposed to letting the workers run the companies. But I also believe that corporations need goading or else they will be sexist or racist in policies. There needs to be frameworks and they need to be accepted. And there needs to be more realistic rules, because the system is not working, people are miserable.

Quote:

China does not allow foreign ownership of any business. Try again.

Good thing to know, thanks.

And I suppose my only response to that is "Yet."

Quote:

Obviously, I believe in rules and laws. I just don't believe in having so many rules and laws that it is virtually impossible for someone to conduct their daily activities without innocently breaking one of them.

Than we agree completely on that point.

[Mr_Canada]

I believe I need to add this point because I'm pretty strongly committed to it.

I don't believe that a man who does no work and sits at the top should be paid as royalty when the grunts he's hired are doing so much more work for 7.50 an hour, barely enough, or simply not enough at all to eat every day. That is one of the main things I hate about corporations.

Corporations look like monarchies to me. And at the top are Human Beings. Too many consider them infallible, pure. A lot of people don't believe in White Collar Crime.

I understand the Capitalist argument against people like me. The idea that I as a Left-Winger feel you are putting a gun to my head and taking my money, and the idea that Socialists are putting a gun to your head to rob you of your money.

I just simply don't see what is at all right in having massive profits and NOT passing any of that down to the Grunt workers, but only to yourself. It is inappropriate to allow this, in my opinion. And not only during a financial crisis, but at any time!

I don't believe the Leaders of corporations deserve that money. Some of it, of course, as they are workers too. But I believe the money should be passed down to the workers.

Let's say I'm willing to drop Corporate Taxation. Or at least minimalize it. And instead impose policies that force greater equality among workers and leaders. Is this an evil policy?