[Xenicide]

bcs, on 30 July 2009 - 04:10 AM, said:

I mean, shit, even Obama said he would withdraw troops "NOW" during his campaign to end this so-called "oil conquest" but he's still sending more troops over to Afghanistan. You know what the kicker is? Obama said the USA is not in the middle east for victory. What is the fucking point of war if you're not going there to win? This is yet another reason why he is a stupid fucking president.

Obama is one big massive fail. He has done nothing he's promised. Gitmo is still running. We're still in Iraq. Sadly, this socialist healthcare bill seems like it might pass...

Also, Sofa, practically everything you've said I have heard on the news, which gives it a 90% chance of being skewed to suit a certain political party. And with you spelling honored like "honoured", it leads me to believe you aren't American, or reside in the United States of America, which means the news you get is even more skewed.

[Sofaking]

bcs, on 30 July 2009 - 04:10 AM, said:

What he said...

As far as I am concerned just because someone thinks there are WMD's in Iraq doesn't mean there will be some there... and I've heard countless times that we needed to invade Iraq before Afghanistan as well. So what's the issue? Media spinning it off as an oil conquest? Probably.

I mean, shit, even Obama said he would withdraw troops "NOW" during his campaign to end this so-called "oil conquest" but he's still sending more troops over to Afghanistan. You know what the kicker is? Obama said the USA is not in the middle east for victory. What is the fucking point of war if you're not going there to win? This is yet another reason why he is a stupid fucking president.

I don't disagree that Obama is a stupid president, it's no great secret why he got elected. The problem is the left will tell you Iraq was about oil. The right will tell you it's about WMD and removing a tyrant. The truth is probably somewhere down the middle.
However this train has become derailed my original post was never meant to be a pro vs con debate of the Iraq war. I was trying to make a point that a person can not be so selective in their social assistance. It's either all or nothing. Regardless of where his or her service was or is, a veteran is a veteran and should be treated with the utmost respect however a person can not simply say, that they should get assistance because because of the nature of their sacrifice. Average people sacrifice every day to make America great and that's the point of social assistance, to pick a person up who is down by no fault of their own.

[Sofaking]

Xenicide, on 30 July 2009 - 05:25 AM, said:

Obama is one big massive fail. He has done nothing he's promised. Gitmo is still running. We're still in Iraq. Sadly, this socialist healthcare bill seems like it might pass...

Also, Sofa, practically everything you've said I have heard on the news, which gives it a 90% chance of being skewed to suit a certain political party. And with you spelling honored like "honoured", it leads me to believe you aren't American, or reside in the United States of America, which means the news you get is even more skewed.

News is always skewed one way or another. However having watched Fox news, I can't say I've ever seen anything more skewed than that.

[Udlose]

Sofaking, on 30 July 2009 - 05:44 AM, said:

News is always skewed one way or another. However having watched Fox news, I can't say I've ever seen anything more skewed than that.

After watching Fox news and CNN (Communist News Network) and the other mainstream stations owned by GE etc. I can see the same long clips played out on Fox then watch the other news stations play only 2 sentences out of a whole paragraph to try and get thier point across.

Socialism is fail. If it workes so nice why is our unemployment rate lower and our standard of living so much higher?

There are some people that dont have disablilities and still cant make it here. I wouldnt mind if some of them got help. My problem with socialism (and the way our system works now) is that Shaliqua can have 8 baby daddy with 11 kids and make 3k+ per kid at the end of the year... and make more than someone who actually works for a living. She can smoke crack all day long and still get a check at the end of the month. Now Joe Blow works for a living and has to pass a drug test to keep his job so he can pay his taxes to support Shaliqua and her litter of children (of whom will also do nothing with thier lives and have to be supported by Joe Blow) ...... Ohh the irony...

If your happy working for someone else for 40k a year, good for you. If you want to start a business and make 250k- 1 million a year, good for you. The point is that is your choice. Socialism will really limit your choices and will reward failure. PUNISH the greedy man that worked 14-16 hrs days while starting a business from scratch. Take 1/2 of his money and give it to the poor people that have no ambition to ever achieve anything in life.

Here is the new mentality.....
Hey fat kid that cant play sports, here is a trophy. We dont want you to feel responcible for your actions or inactions. Instead we can make the achievers feel like what they strived for was pointless since there is no actual reward.

Screw that.... If your a fatass and cant play sports and feel left out, do something about it. IDK whats going on anymore with all the entitlement issues, but in 15 years when all the new kids are running this country we are going to be screwed.

They can take that social medical plan and shove it up thier fat white asses. It's all just to make more govt jobs and more people dependant so they can secure votes. How many people out there with cushy government jobs will vote themselves out of a job for the better of our nation? Not many i know that.

[Sofaking]

IMO it's not socialism that fails but the current state of America's constitutional republic. The checks and balances that were put in place have been blurred over the years to such a point that the 3 levels of government have effectively become one. So now any legislation that a current sitting government wants past usually will. So when Octomom wants a hand out she gets it because the average voter is not either not voting or is not holding their elected representative accountable to behave in the best interest of the voter. Would things be different if America went to a more Oligarchy style of government, probably because in that case it would reward the greedy man willing to work 14-16 hrs a day to get ahead. However it punishes the majority who through education or ambition are not as successful despite how hard they may work.

The intent socialism was protect the middle and lower class from exploitation by the upper class. Has it been taken too far.... absolutely, as you've pointed out we live in an era of no accountability. The children today haven't had to worry about making ends meet or where their next meal would come from like their parents and grandparents did before them so they've developed a false sense of entitlement and dependancy on the state to take care of their best interests. Is socialism the worst form of government? well that depends on your point of view.

[Havock]

politics make me sleepy

[bcs]

We already proved as a country that socialism fails economically, Sofaking. You live in Canada, land of high taxes... so yeah.

1940s - FDR - social security and "new deal" programs were social programs and bailouts. They never got us out of the great depression. What got us out of the depression was World War II because of the spending required.. so we were putting people to work, creating new businesses for war supplies, etc. Fast forward to the 1970s where we continued having those same programs, high taxes, and yada. We had super high inflation and high unemployment.

1980s is when we finally reversed the trend. Ronald Reagan cut the marginal capital gains from 70% to 28% over time. This caused inflaction to dramatically decrease, employment to increase, and the US became the #1 economic superpower at that time. The government actually took in more money with the lower capital gains tax because more people are working... they're keeping more of their money... so they get to spend more. Anyone who doesn't see how that works is simply an idiot.

The 1990s with Clinton were okay, he was a moderate, but he still raised taxes and created a small depression after he left office. When Bush took over and cut taxes again in 2004, we had a massive growth in our economy including a huge GDP growth of 7.2% in 2004.

That's the short version, but the general rule is socialism does not work as we've proven so. People are not going to work if they get handouts and have to suffer high taxes.

The whole point of America was American exceptionalism - you made a great business, you made a great product, you deserve to be taxed fairly as anyone else - no tax brackets. Freedom does not come free, you have to work for it... and once government 'owns' your life (which it does with any national health care program) then freedom of choice is destroyed. Here, you have a choice for (almost) everything.

Quote

Would things be different if America went to a more Oligarchy style of government, probably because in that case it would reward the greedy man willing to work 14-16 hrs a day to get ahead. However it punishes the majority who through education or ambition are not as successful despite how hard they may work.

How exactly is the greedy man "greedy"? He's working and he's found a way to make good amounts of money. That's hardly greedy. You just think he's greedy because you don't make as much or more than him. That's what it comes down to.

[Xenicide]

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had once failed an entire class.

--------------------------------------------

That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan".

All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.
The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.

As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.
The second test average was a D! No one was happy.

When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because, when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

Could not be any simpler than that.

[Zone]

Why is it that niggers names look like somebody sat down on a keyboard when typing their birth certificate

[Xenicide]

Shaniqua!

[Sofaking]

bcs, on 30 July 2009 - 07:29 PM, said:

We already proved as a country that socialism fails economically, Sofaking. You live in Canada, land of high taxes... so yeah.

1940s - FDR - social security and "new deal" programs were social programs and bailouts. They never got us out of the great depression. What got us out of the depression was World War II because of the spending required.. so we were putting people to work, creating new businesses for war supplies, etc. Fast forward to the 1970s where we continued having those same programs, high taxes, and yada. We had super high inflation and high unemployment.

1980s is when we finally reversed the trend. Ronald Reagan cut the marginal capital gains from 70% to 28% over time. This caused inflaction to dramatically decrease, employment to increase, and the US became the #1 economic superpower at that time. The government actually took in more money with the lower capital gains tax because more people are working... they're keeping more of their money... so they get to spend more. Anyone who doesn't see how that works is simply an idiot.

The 1990s with Clinton were okay, he was a moderate, but he still raised taxes and created a small depression after he left office. When Bush took over and cut taxes again in 2004, we had a massive growth in our economy including a huge GDP growth of 7.2% in 2004.

That's the short version, but the general rule is socialism does not work as we've proven so. People are not going to work if they get handouts and have to suffer high taxes.

The whole point of America was American exceptionalism - you made a great business, you made a great product, you deserve to be taxed fairly as anyone else - no tax brackets. Freedom does not come free, you have to work for it... and once government 'owns' your life (which it does with any national health care program) then freedom of choice is destroyed. Here, you have a choice for (almost) everything.


How exactly is the greedy man "greedy"? He's working and he's found a way to make good amounts of money. That's hardly greedy. You just think he's greedy because you don't make as much or more than him. That's what it comes down to.

High taxes??? I pay 26% income tax the same bracket in the states is 25%. Any system Socialist, or not will fail economically when compared to a system where there is little or no tax. The difference being my tax dollars pay for health care while american tax dollars fund the defence budget.
However if you feel like enlightening me on how I'm over taxed I'd like to hear it since you seem to more versed in the Canadian taxation system then I am.

You can rant all day about how socialism doesn't work, yet free market capitalism has proven it doesn't work either. Isn't that what your proposing? How is my freedom of choice destroyed because I have a national healthcare program??? Here I have a choice for almost everything as well.

How is a greedy man greedy? Ask the greedy men and women of the American banking system who sold toxic debt to foreign investers causing a world wide recession just to earn a few more dollars. Or is that just liberal spin? If a someone wants to go out bust their ass and make millions or billions of dollars more power to them but when they risk the welfare of others to achieve their goals then yes they are greedy.

[Sofaking]

Xenicide, on 30 July 2009 - 07:57 PM, said:

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had once failed an entire class.

--------------------------------------------

That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan".

All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.
The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.

As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.
The second test average was a D! No one was happy.

When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because, when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

Could not be any simpler than that.

The basis for the story above

Bottom line is socialism fails, free market capitalism fails, all forms government fail in on way or another.

[bcs]

Capitalism doesn't fail. It rewards the successful people and keeps government out of the people's lives. Socialism does not.

You do not have freedom in Canada Sofaking. Maybe you think you do but when health care is provided by government, then they do own you. They can do whatever they want to you and you can not do anything about it. When you go to a doctor, the government dictates what treatment you can and cannot get since they pay for your health. The government can also tell you what you can and cannot do in life once their health dollars are being squeezed in order to cut costs. You are most definitely not free.

In the US you are (were) free. You can choose to have health insurance or not as there are many insurance companies to pick from. You can do whatever you want with your money, you can do whatever you want with your company which is the whole point. In fact there is one insurance company in the US that did health care insurance reform way better than government. This company increases/decreases your health insurance plan cost by looking at what you do in life - if you don't smoke, eat healthy things and stay within a certain BMI, exercise, etc, then you can shave $50-100 off the health plan. Of course, you won't hear about this company because government wants to take over people's lives instead. So much easier to do.

And actually, you realize it is the U.S. government that caused the banking problem and the "worldwide" recession, not the private sector. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, public companies created by the left during Clinton administration caused this problem. These two companies provided loans to people who could NOT afford a house. In order to compete, private banks had to provide subprime loans. You really ought to think before you post Sofaking. Socialism (Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are government created companies and therefore do not need to turn a profit) cause massive economic problems while capitalism does not.

You seem to have a problem with us funding the defense budget. I guess freedom is not worth defending according to you? Time has proven that social/welfare policies fail in the US so they are absolutely not needed. If a person wants to make money they will find a job. If they don't care for money they will sit around and do nothing, but they will also accept handouts (free money is free!) which is ultimately why social policies fail.

As for Canada taxes, you do have a rather high marginal tax rate, and not to mention sales tax. Everytime I went to Canada, many things were overpriced compared to the US. Applebees in Canada... steak for $25... where you can get it for $13 in the US. Candy out of the candy machine for $2.00-$2.50 where you can get the same thing for $0.50-0.75 here. Equipment in Best Buy? Uh yeah... expensive compared to here.

[Xenicide]

Sofaking, on 31 July 2009 - 04:43 PM, said:

High taxes??? I pay 26% income tax the same bracket in the states is 25%. Any system Socialist, or not will fail economically when compared to a system where there is little or no tax. The difference being my tax dollars pay for health care while american tax dollars fund the defence budget.
However if you feel like enlightening me on how I'm over taxed I'd like to hear it since you seem to more versed in the Canadian taxation system then I am.

You can rant all day about how socialism doesn't work, yet free market capitalism has proven it doesn't work either. Isn't that what your proposing? How is my freedom of choice destroyed because I have a national healthcare program??? Here I have a choice for almost everything as well.

How is a greedy man greedy? Ask the greedy men and women of the American banking system who sold toxic debt to foreign investers causing a world wide recession just to earn a few more dollars. Or is that just liberal spin? If a someone wants to go out bust their ass and make millions or billions of dollars more power to them but when they risk the welfare of others to achieve their goals then yes they are greedy.

You forgot to mention that many Canadians hop the border like a bunch of Mexicans so they can get the health care they NEED, not what the government allows.

[Phandelope]

LOL Xenicide. I would say about as many Canadians hop the border as do Americans for health care. At least when we do it isn't breaking any laws.

[bcs]

We have fobs coming into our country for health care too. If I had my way we would just shoot them or deport them.

Anyway, every time we had a conservative president in the last few decades the economy was always better than when we had a liberal president. The only reason why people hate the conservatives/Republicans is because they are not going to provide social help. If you want help, you can get a job, whatever. It's that simple.


Here's how the parties in the US work:

Liberal/Dumbocrat = Tax the wealthy, middle class, and distribute it to the poor (for free!) because it's immoral to make large amounts of money, even if you're successful.

Conservative/ most Republicans = Lower taxes and everyone is equally taxed, no redistribution of wealth/social policies, abolish income taxes, privatization of the economy, etc. Everyone has equal opportunity to make money.

The funny fact is that everytime the conservatives have owned the White House, we have had the lowest unemployment and more Americans reporting capital gains than when the liberals owned the White House. Case in point... the liberal Jimmy Carter had a high marginal tax rate, about 70%, and the economy was regulated. We had high inflation and high unemployment (into the 10-20%s). After his term was over, the conservative Ronald Reagan took office and cut the marginal tax rate down to 28%, deregulated the economy. Our inflation dramatically decreased and our unemployment rate decreased to 2-3% from over 10%.

The same thing happened during Clinton's administration and Bush's administration. Clinton created a small recession, Bush cut taxes to remedy it and we went back to a strong economy. People who blame Bush for the terrible economy are the ones who are not doing enough research. Bush was doing what he could to fix the economy - such as getting rid of social security, fixing Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, etc. Since the liberals owned Congress during Bush's second term, he could not achieve that since the liberals didn't allow him to get rid of the programs that were breaking us.

The bottom line is, when you look at the numbers and the programs, it's the liberals causing the economic problem, not the conservatives. And as far as I am concerned, the Conservative party in Canada also created a better economy for Canada than the liberal parties. I wouldn't be surprised if your Conservatives want to get rid of the Canada health system because it is horrid.

One final tidbit that I would like to add... liberals don't understand math. It's that simple. Everybody (except liberals) knows that people will spend more when taxes are low. When taxes are lower, people obviously have more money on hand, and they will spend more money. The end result is that we have more circulation of money and the government actually will take in more money than with high taxes.

[Sofaking]

bcs, on 31 July 2009 - 08:05 PM, said:

Capitalism doesn't fail. It rewards the successful people and keeps government out of the people's lives. Socialism does not.

You do not have freedom in Canada Sofaking. Maybe you think you do but when health care is provided by government, then they do own you. They can do whatever they want to you and you can not do anything about it. When you go to a doctor, the government dictates what treatment you can and cannot get since they pay for your health. The government can also tell you what you can and cannot do in life once their health dollars are being squeezed in order to cut costs. You are most definitely not free.

In the US you are (were) free. You can choose to have health insurance or not as there are many insurance companies to pick from. You can do whatever you want with your money, you can do whatever you want with your company which is the whole point. In fact there is one insurance company in the US that did health care insurance reform way better than government. This company increases/decreases your health insurance plan cost by looking at what you do in life - if you don't smoke, eat healthy things and stay within a certain BMI, exercise, etc, then you can shave $50-100 off the health plan. Of course, you won't hear about this company because government wants to take over people's lives instead. So much easier to do.

And actually, you realize it is the U.S. government that caused the banking problem and the "worldwide" recession, not the private sector. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, public companies created by the left during Clinton administration caused this problem. These two companies provided loans to people who could NOT afford a house. In order to compete, private banks had to provide subprime loans. You really ought to think before you post Sofaking. Socialism (Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are government created companies and therefore do not need to turn a profit) cause massive economic problems while capitalism does not.

You seem to have a problem with us funding the defense budget. I guess freedom is not worth defending according to you? Time has proven that social/welfare policies fail in the US so they are absolutely not needed. If a person wants to make money they will find a job. If they don't care for money they will sit around and do nothing, but they will also accept handouts (free money is free!) which is ultimately why social policies fail.

As for Canada taxes, you do have a rather high marginal tax rate, and not to mention sales tax. Everytime I went to Canada, many things were overpriced compared to the US. Applebees in Canada... steak for $25... where you can get it for $13 in the US. Candy out of the candy machine for $2.00-$2.50 where you can get the same thing for $0.50-0.75 here. Equipment in Best Buy? Uh yeah... expensive compared to here.

Your right Capitalism succeeds... in moving the jobs of hard working Americans to places like Mexico and China. Where labour can be bought for pennies a day.

Wow... I don't even know where to begin with your take on Canadian health care. It's almost as if you making an assertion that my doctor needs to inform the government as to what treatment I need so they can rubber stamp it. That the government has the power to say I'm sorry but your not getting that triple bypass you so desparately need.

Putting your faith in a company that is there to make money is foolish. You really believe that a private health care provider is only concerned with your health and well being and not making a profit? Insurance providers go to great lengths to figure out how not to pay your claim. Yeah I love that kind of freedom sure beats the freedom of knowing that no matter what happens to me at home or at work I'll be treated in hospital for free. Cheaper rates for being fit a non smoker, non drinker sounds like life insurance.

So what happened to these sub prime loan mortgages.... they were bought up by private firms, bundled together in blocks sold to foreign investers/countries amd that these foreign investers were never told that these subprime mortgages were inside. So as long as people paid their mortgages then the investers got paid. When the mortgage crisis hit and all these subprime mortgages went into foreclosure these foreign investers most of whom were foreign banks were stuck with billions of debt. If subprime mortgages were the sole cause of the recession and not these toxic debt bundles then it would have only affected the US and not cascaded around the world. So yes I do think before I speak.

If you choose to interrept my reference to US spending on the defense budget in that way then go ahead. However I making a point as to what each countries main tax spending item is however I do apologize I thought the US spent the most on defence turns out it's social security. I never said spending on defense was a bad decision nothing burns me more than when our Liberal government in the 90s all but dismantled our military in favour of other bullshit agendas.

The price of things in Canada has nothing to do with tax. It has everything to do with retailers not keeping up with exchange rates. Last year when Our dollar was about the same as the green back things were still more expensive here because retailers were still basing their prices on our dollar being worth 75 cents american as opposed to when it was at it's highest of $1.10 american.

[Sofaking]

I doubt you'd ever see the Conservatives in Canada ever get rid of national healthcare. They are centerist party that leans to the right...

In Canada we have 4 major parties and they are pretty much center, left, lefter and leftest. And if not for our minority government having to bend to the will of the left we wouldn't have needed to create billions of dollars of debt from a stimulus package that never got fully implimented before we the recession turned around.

TBH our health care system isn't has horrid as you think but I do fully agree that Obama got it wrong and his idea of health care is nothing like ours. However should the bill pass maybe then we would be able to keep a few of our health care providers instead of having them constantly move to the states where the money is better. That is ultimately the problem with our health care is that we just don't have enough doctors. So while you could get some elective surgery done tomorrow. I might have to wait a month or two. But it's elective so who really cares. The people jumping to the states for care are those looking for elective surgeries who don't want to have wait to have benign cyst on their ass removed.

[bcs]

Sofaking, on 01 August 2009 - 12:40 AM, said:

Your right Capitalism succeeds... in moving the jobs of hard working Americans to places like Mexico and China. Where labour can be bought for pennies a day.

You know why the jobs have been moved over there? It's because America has one of the highest corporate tax rates now thanks to liberals. Even Microsoft is considering moving out of the USA now. Taxes raised? Minimum wage raised? Ok, companies are going to move to Mexico and China where they can continue to function instead of going bankrupt. That's the reality of the situation. Capitalism succeeds when it's not heavily regulated, jobs would have been kept here. When it's regulated, then you will have companies moving overseas. DUH! So your statement is incorrect.

Quote

Wow... I don't even know where to begin with your take on Canadian health care. It's almost as if you making an assertion that my doctor needs to inform the government as to what treatment I need so they can rubber stamp it. That the government has the power to say I'm sorry but your not getting that triple bypass you so desparately need.

We have the lowest mortality rates for treatment here compared to any other country in the world. That's because the doctor decides what the best course of treatment is - there's no third party (like the government) involved.

Quote

Putting your faith in a company that is there to make money is foolish. You really believe that a private health care provider is only concerned with your health and well being and not making a profit? Insurance providers go to great lengths to figure out how not to pay your claim. Yeah I love that kind of freedom sure beats the freedom of knowing that no matter what happens to me at home or at work I'll be treated in hospital for free. Cheaper rates for being fit a non smoker, non drinker sounds like life insurance.

Only people who don't read the fine print say this. Companies want your money but they don't get it until you pay them. It's that simple. With a government option, your money is forcibly removed and you have no say in the matter. You call that freedom? Alright then. As soon as you guys understand that health care is not a right, it's a privilege, we will all be better off. You can choose to have insurance or not - that's your choice. When it comes to government providing health, you do not have a CHOICE!

Here, you can pay $50-75 a month for a tiny health plan that covers only a select few things, or you can pay upwards of $250-300 a month for a better health plan that would cover every single thing you wanted... even cosmetics surgeries, etc. The bottom line is that in America, you have a choice on how much you want to pay for your health insurance. You also have a choice if you don't want health insurance at all. You guys don't get a choice in Canada. Your own government decides to shove their socialized health down your throats and that's that.

Quote

So what happened to these sub prime loan mortgages.... they were bought up by private firms, bundled together in blocks sold to foreign investers/countries amd that these foreign investers were never told that these subprime mortgages were inside. So as long as people paid their mortgages then the investers got paid. When the mortgage crisis hit and all these subprime mortgages went into foreclosure these foreign investers most of whom were foreign banks were stuck with billions of debt. If subprime mortgages were the sole cause of the recession and not these toxic debt bundles then it would have only affected the US and not cascaded around the world. So yes I do think before I speak.

Just look at your post further up... you claim it was "us" that caused this worldwide recession with the subprime crap. So what is it going to be now?

Quote

If you choose to interrept my reference to US spending on the defense budget in that way then go ahead. However I making a point as to what each countries main tax spending item is however I do apologize I thought the US spent the most on defence turns out it's social security. I never said spending on defense was a bad decision nothing burns me more than when our Liberal government in the 90s all but dismantled our military in favour of other bullshit agendas.

And social security would have been destroyed if Bush did it in his first term instead of second term...

Quote

The price of things in Canada has nothing to do with tax. It has everything to do with retailers not keeping up with exchange rates. Last year when Our dollar was about the same as the green back things were still more expensive here because retailers were still basing their prices on our dollar being worth 75 cents american as opposed to when it was at it's highest of $1.10 american.

Actually it does... when taxes are higher or raised retailers raise their product and service prices to compensate for it. It happens here all the time.


Another slight addition, the U.S. has not had a problem with the debt UNTIL the 1940s when Franklin Roosevelt took office and introduced all these social programs. Since then we have been sinking into debt.

It's mind boggling how Obama got office because most Americans are conservatives according to Gallup, which is a respected polling organization.

[Sofaking]

bcs, on 01 August 2009 - 01:56 AM, said:

You know why the jobs have been moved over there? It's because America has one of the highest corporate tax rates now thanks to liberals. Even Microsoft is considering moving out of the USA now. Taxes raised? Minimum wage raised? Ok, companies are going to move to Mexico and China where they can continue to function instead of going bankrupt. That's the reality of the situation. Capitalism succeeds when it's not heavily regulated, jobs would have been kept here. When it's regulated, then you will have companies moving overseas. DUH! So your statement is incorrect.

And communism succeeds when those in power aren't perverted by said power. What your asking for is the most basic idealistic vision of what capitalism should be however like communism and socialism, capitalism isn't an effective form of government because it's very ideals alienate too many people. That's not to say that some form of capitalism mixed or otherwise wouldn't be the best form of government but there will always be those that say that's still not good enough.

We have the lowest mortality rates for treatment here compared to any other country in the world. That's because the doctor decides what the best course of treatment is - there's no third party (like the government) involved.

Except the US has one of the highest infant mortality rates and one of the lowest life expectancy rates in the Western world.


Only people who don't read the fine print say this. Companies want your money but they don't get it until you pay them. It's that simple. With a government option, your money is forcibly removed and you have no say in the matter. You call that freedom? Alright then. As soon as you guys understand that health care is not a right, it's a privilege, we will all be better off. You can choose to have insurance or not - that's your choice. When it comes to government providing health, you do not have a CHOICE!

What you fail to see is that I do have a choice. I have chosen to live in a country with universal health care. That is my freedom. I don't have to live here but I do. As you have the choice to have or not have health care.

Here, you can pay $50-75 a month for a tiny health plan that covers only a select few things, or you can pay upwards of $250-300 a month for a better health plan that would cover every single thing you wanted... even cosmetics surgeries, etc. The bottom line is that in America, you have a choice on how much you want to pay for your health insurance. You also have a choice if you don't want health insurance at all. You guys don't get a choice in Canada. Your own government decides to shove their socialized health down your throats and that's that.

We don't have a choice because we already decided. If enough people decide not to have socialized healthcare we won't have socialized healthcare. Obviously in America there are enough people who want it that they may actually get it. It sucks for those who don't want it but then you still have choices. It's up to you to decide if those choices are worth exercising.

Just look at your post further up... you claim it was "us" that caused this worldwide recession with the subprime crap. So what is it going to be now?

And I still contend it was the US. I don't believe I said anything to the contrary.

And social security would have been destroyed if Bush did it in his first term instead of second term...


Actually it does... when taxes are higher or raised retailers raise their product and service prices to compensate for it. It happens here all the time.

Taxes in Canada did nothing but go down yet still prices remained the same.


Another slight addition, the U.S. has not had a problem with the debt UNTIL the 1940s when Franklin Roosevelt took office and introduced all these social programs. Since then we have been sinking into debt.

It's mind boggling how Obama got office because most Americans are conservatives according to Gallup, which is a respected polling organization.

I think that simply comes down to people not understanding what being conservative means. I can only assume that most Americans probably identify liberal with a welfare state which might be a fair analysis however there is such a stigma against welfare that people who would otherwise be liberal by definition will label themselves conservative because of it.