The W
Views: 99945226
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
23.10.07 0359
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Anyone Catch the debate?
This thread has 1 referral leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next(1620 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (45 total)
Michrome
Head cheese
Level: 39

Posts: 116/330
EXP: 393612
For next: 11163

Since: 2.1.03

Since last post: 3832 days
Last activity: 2898 days
#21 Posted on 6.5.03 0026.10
Reposted on: 6.5.10 0026.29
I live out here in California, and frankly, I see no reason why Bush should send Grey Davis more money to waste on all sorts of idiotic things. Colorado is not running a deficit right now, and I think that can mainly be attributed to legislation they have passed restricting the budget and all kinds of spending. If states stop spending loads of money on programs that absolutely don't work, and let individuals invest that money instead, they can all get out of this.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 1406/4700
EXP: 21583171
For next: 253491

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1269 days
Last activity: 1066 days
#22 Posted on 6.5.03 0609.13
Reposted on: 6.5.10 0613.03

    Originally posted by godking
    The federal government is supposed to send some money the states' way to begin with.

Please direct me to the line in the Constitution where it says this.


    Originally posted by godking
    That's why there are federal departments for, among other things, education, housing, health, the environment, and social services - despite that most of these things are handled on a lower level primarily by the states.

And we'd frankly be better off if these things either didn't exist or were severely scaled back.


    Originally posted by godking
    One of the reasons for massive unemployment right now is huge public sector layoffs that the private sector simply can't absorb, and we're not talking useless union bulk but rather key jobs like teachers and social workers.

I can honestly say that I'm not aware of teachers getting the boot, I will say that this could just be something I'm not aware of.


    Originally posted by godking
    You can say "it's not Bush's fault that the states overspend" all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that it's been done, and the state economies are a shambles, and now it's his job to pitch in and help out and he's refusing to do it.

That's like saying you made $40,000 a year while spending $115,000 a year and it's my responsibility to bail you out.
Mr. Heat Miser
Blutwurst
Level: 36

Posts: 126/259
EXP: 284275
For next: 23838

Since: 27.1.02

Since last post: 2544 days
Last activity: 647 days
#23 Posted on 6.5.03 0959.07
Reposted on: 6.5.10 0959.07
As the 23 yrs in Canada and 7 in the US kind of guy I am, it seems to me like Godking is assuming that the US federal system shares more characteristics w/ the Canadian federal system than it really does.

Transfer payments are an integral part of the Canadian system, while in the US, the feds really aren't committed to sending much money to the states, which is how all of these unfunded federal mandates we hear about crop up.
MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 88

Posts: 1298/2108
EXP: 6615637
For next: 35053

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 5 hours
#24 Posted on 6.5.03 1119.21
Reposted on: 6.5.10 1123.17
That's like saying you made $40,000 a year while spending $115,000 a year and it's my responsibility to bail you out.

No. It's like saying if you make $40,000 a year while spending $75,000 a year $35,000 of which you make me spend, it's your responsibility to give me the extra $35,000 dollars.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 1408/4700
EXP: 21583171
For next: 253491

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1269 days
Last activity: 1066 days
#25 Posted on 6.5.03 1149.36
Reposted on: 6.5.10 1151.27

    Originally posted by MoeGates
    That's like saying you made $40,000 a year while spending $115,000 a year and it's my responsibility to bail you out.

    No. It's like saying if you make $40,000 a year while spending $75,000 a year $35,000 of which you make me spend, it's your responsibility to give me the extra $35,000 dollars.


Your point about unfunded mandates is a valid one...though it still does not justify the feds spending the money. Manly because the unfunded mandates themselves should be reviewed.
calvinh0560
Boudin rouge
Level: 48

Posts: 340/518
EXP: 806141
For next: 17407

Since: 3.1.02
From: People's Republic of Massachusetts

Since last post: 560 days
Last activity: 9 hours
#26 Posted on 6.5.03 1202.13
Reposted on: 6.5.10 1203.28
I think the best example is you spending $115,000 while you are only making $40,000 but I am forcing you to spend $35,000.

Michrome
Head cheese
Level: 39

Posts: 118/330
EXP: 393612
For next: 11163

Since: 2.1.03

Since last post: 3832 days
Last activity: 2898 days
#27 Posted on 6.5.03 1434.24
Reposted on: 6.5.10 1435.02

    The federal government is supposed to send some money the states' way to begin with.


This must be in some magical constitution I've never seen. Where did you get this idea from?

If Colorado can handle deficit problems with balanced budget legislation, so can other states. However, out here in California, our government doesn't waste time on silly things like saving money, we try to find ways to give illegal aliens full rights of citizens.

Just one more thing on universal health care: It's a violation of the 5th amendment as well.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. "

How anyone has the audacity to stand up there and promise job growth while promoting an additional 7.7% tax on all employers in order to pay for universal healthcare is beyond me.



(edited by Michrome on 6.5.03 1612)
godking
Chourico
Level: 36

Posts: 94/274
EXP: 300345
For next: 7768

Since: 20.10.02
From: Toronto

Since last post: 3905 days
Last activity: 3851 days
#28 Posted on 6.5.03 2002.30
Reposted on: 6.5.10 2004.22
How anyone has the audacity to stand up there and promise job growth while promoting an additional 7.7% tax on all employers in order to pay for universal healthcare is beyond me.

If it's cheaper for the American populace than a multipayer system is, it'll end up creating a leaner, more effective system. (The fact that this has been shown over and over to in fact be the case seems to escape you.)

As for your really lame "it's unconstitutional" argument:

"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

You get your just compensation. You get healthcare. You might argue that roads or schools aren't just compensation as well, but that would be a load.
PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 77

Posts: 662/1528
EXP: 4084523
For next: 106625

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2830 days
Last activity: 2672 days
AIM:  
#29 Posted on 6.5.03 2041.18
Reposted on: 6.5.10 2042.43

    Originally posted by godking
    How anyone has the audacity to stand up there and promise job growth while promoting an additional 7.7% tax on all employers in order to pay for universal healthcare is beyond me.

    If it's cheaper for the American populace than a multipayer system is, it'll end up creating a leaner, more effective system. (The fact that this has been shown over and over to in fact be the case seems to escape you.)

    As for your really lame "it's unconstitutional" argument:

    "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

    You get your just compensation. You get healthcare. You might argue that roads or schools aren't just compensation as well, but that would be a load.



A.) Single payer health care HAS NOT been proven more effective. That is your opinion, and you're entitled to it, but it is far from proven fact.

B.) By your Constitutional rationale, the gov't could confiscate 100% of my earnings, so long as they give me whatever you deem to be just compensation.
Michrome
Head cheese
Level: 39

Posts: 119/330
EXP: 393612
For next: 11163

Since: 2.1.03

Since last post: 3832 days
Last activity: 2898 days
#30 Posted on 6.5.03 2232.45
Reposted on: 6.5.10 2232.46

    (The fact that this has been shown over and over to in fact be the case seems to escape you.)


This of course explains why so many Canadians come down over the border for health care. The person buying the property doesn't get to decide what is just compensation, the seller does, on an individual basis. You seem to have no clue on the concept of private property. If your definition of "working" is long waiting periods before you can get care, then keep enjoying the "working" system up there. In America, health care is not a right, and even if 99.9% of Americans wanted socialized health care, (they majority of Americans do not want it...subscribe to gallup if you don't believe me) it would STILL be unconstitutional.

There is nothing the government does that couldn't be done more efficiently by the private sector. Look at the disaster that is public education. Have you ever been to the post office here? If private companies ran the mail, everything would be much faster. 70 cents of every tax dollar intended for welfare recipients is sucked up by transfer costs, leaving only 30 cents to the intended recipient, whereas groups like the Salvation army are able to get 85 cents or so of every dollar to the intended recipient. Medicare has made medical care less accessable, not more accessable. If you remove the profit incentive from medicine, you will no longer get the best students going into medical school. If I need brain surgery some day, I want the highest level of care possible, and if we keep reducing the incentive for people to go into medicine, medical care will get worse. (This of course excludes military, which could never be done on a private basis.)

And it's not as if every Canadian loves the system. This was a letter to a political pundit (Larry Elder) that he has put out for the public to read. Yes, it is laced with his opinion, so expect an opinionated letter with some grammar mistakes.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Larry:

I'm writing to you about the Michael Moore interview on the Phil Donahue show. I would like to clarify a few things about what he had to say regarding the Canadian health care system. I grew up in Canada, and have been a recipient of the Canadian socialized health care system up until I left the socialist country (it is a socialist country) to come and live here in a free market society (unless Hillary becomes President)

My seventy years old mother, who still lives in Canada, had surgery on October 18th 2002. She had been on a waiting list since May of 2000. Twice, she was called in the course of those 2 plus years, and told that within a few weeks she should expect a call from the hospital to come in to get her surgery. But each time she was left hanging. On the third time (2 years and 4 months later), she was finally admitted to the hospital. Because of her advanced age she had taken a private supplemental insurance to cover for a private room, and other things that aren't cover by the Canadian health care system (they don't cover everything). When they called her to come in she's put a request for a private room, and told the hospital that she would pay for it and have her insurance reimburse her later. They told her that it wouldn't be a problem. That's until she show up at the hospital, and was put in a room with another patient.. A MAN. When she told the nurse that she had requested a private room, the nurse told her; " you should feel lucky you could have been put in a room with 3 other patients" my Mom hesitated for a moment then the nurse told her; " if you don't like it there are 200 people on the waiting list, they'd be happy to take your spot, but you'll have to wait another 2 years." What were her options? Going to a different hospital? She didn't have a choice all hospitals are owned by the government, all nurses and doctors are hired by the government. My mother's experience is not a horror story, nor the exception, but the norm up there.

For people who think that socialize health care means we all have access to Cedar Sinai are being mislead. What it means is that we all have access to County USC. It also means that all hospitals will be reduced to county USC service and standard, including Cedar Sinai. In a socialist country doctors have to go and practice medicine wherever the government sees fit. Doctors who have refused assignments have been subpoena and brought to justice. Three doctors in the province of Quebec have pending cases, because they refused to do double shift. Not only were they asked to do a double shift, they were ask to do it at a different hospital than the one they are based at.

For people who think that socialized health care means FREE health care, I've got some news for you. It cost money, and you pay for it. First of all the income tax rates are much higher than what we pay here in the US, on top of it everybody has to pay a 15.5% sales tax whenever they shop for goods and services. That includes going to the restaurant, renting a car, renting a hotel rooms, getting your car fixed, getting your haircut, buying clothes, going to a baseball game etc. Beside the taxes on gasoline is through the roof. A gallon of gas cost about $3.00 (for people who don't know Canada pay the same price for a barrel of oil as the US do, taxes makes the price of gas so high). Canadians have almost no disposable income at all, that compare to Americans people. Because too much money goes to taxes. The other perk that comes with the Canadian health care system is cheap medicine. Sometime it is
as much as 70% cheaper to buy medicine in Canada than it is in the US. The reason for it is explained by the fact that Americans people pay for it. We pay an extra 70% here, so that the Pharmaceutical companies can sell their products to Canadian for 70% less. In other words American people subsidize the cheap medicine for Canadians, otherwise Canadians would not have access to cheap medicine. We also do it with the European countries, because in Europe they wont pay more than a certain amount for a specific medicine, so the cost is passed on to the consumers in the US.

How long can the system hold? That's a question the Canadian government asked itself a few years ago. Because the retired population is increasing rapidly due to the baby boomers, the Liberal Canadian government had to find a solution to keep the flow of income tax coming, so they found a very clever way to increase revenues. Let in more young immigrants so they can bring more revenue for the Federal government, and pay for the retired baby boomers. Not only that at the moment they are talking about raise the goods and services tax to 16%.

Are Canadians fed up with this? Some are. After 30 years of socialized health care, parties like the Canadian Alliance, and the Action Democratique du Quebec are becoming very popular. First item on their agenda privatizing the health care system. If there was a provincial race today in Quebec The ADQ (Action Democratique du Quebec), would get between 60% and 70% of the vote in a three party race. I know they'll get my mother's vote. I know that here in the US we do have problems with our health care system, but it not going to be solve by having less choice, and by surrendering the power of choice to the government. When people like Hillary Clinton are telling American people that they have the solution to solve health care system, and it's to socialize it, I find it anti-American. America is about making your own choice. Maybe one day they'll tell us that we should all drive the same car,
all wear the same clothes, all watch the same TV station. For once we should learn something from a foreign country. Socialism doesn't not work. And for people who do not think that it's here at our doorstep beware. Socialism doesn't happen through a revolution or a coup. It creeps up on you little by little. The more the government gets involve in private enterprises, the more you become socialist. One day you wake up and it too late, the bureaucrats control most of your money therefore most of your choices, most of your life. Only the well connected make it, because so much goes through the government that contracts are awarded to friends, and large contributors. That's why it's important to leave as much money as possible in the hands of individuals. Strangely enough, in a socialist country, the rich get richer. The highest average worth of billionaires in the world, is in Sweden. That should tell you something.

Thanks for your time Larry.

Sincerely,
Ben
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is not what I want, it's against all Capitalist priniciples. With Democrats fearing the loss of 4 more Senate seats, it will not happen. A Republican congress would never pass this, even if Howard Dean is elected president.

Constitutional arguments are only "lame" to people that could not care less about what the document actually says. Could you get around the 10th amendment? Yes, the federal government does all the time, unfortunately. However, the supreme court, being a conservative majority at the moment, would strike it down upon the first challenge against it.



(edited by Michrome on 6.5.03 2036)

(edited by Michrome on 6.5.03 2051)
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 1411/4700
EXP: 21583171
For next: 253491

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1269 days
Last activity: 1066 days
#31 Posted on 7.5.03 0611.06
Reposted on: 7.5.10 0611.06

    Originally posted by godking
    As for your really lame "it's unconstitutional" argument

Last time I checked, this was still the supreme law of the land.

godking
Chourico
Level: 36

Posts: 95/274
EXP: 300345
For next: 7768

Since: 20.10.02
From: Toronto

Since last post: 3905 days
Last activity: 3851 days
#32 Posted on 7.5.03 1124.30
Reposted on: 7.5.10 1129.03
PalpatineW:

A.) Single payer health care HAS NOT been proven more effective. That is your opinion, and you're entitled to it, but it is far from proven fact.

The United States, with its multipayer system, pays more per capita for healthcare than any other healthcare system in the first world. The vast majority of these healthcare systems are single-payer. They're more economically efficient for about the same level of care. (A little more on this in a bit.) What other measure of "effectiveness" do you want to bandy about?

Grimis:

Last time I checked, this was still the supreme law of the land.

The point being that it wasn't applicable in that argument.

Michrome:

(snip letter)

Sincerely,
Ben


These things get tossed around by the conservative wing of the media every so often to justify the American system. It's really sad boosterism. Yes, there are horror stories of mismanagement under the Canadian system - but there are horror stories just about everywhere you look, and if you want to take isolated incidents and suggest that they're the norm then I can prove that America loves the Nazi Party wholeheartedly using the same methods.

And it's not like the letter is coherent or truthful. A few points from it:

For people who think that socialize health care means we all have access to Cedar Sinai are being mislead. What it means is that we all have access to County USC. It also means that all hospitals will be reduced to county USC service and standard, including Cedar Sinai.

This is flatly untrue. Hospital quality in Canada is, across-the-board, quite good. (I cheerfully concede that emergency-room care is superior in America, but that's because one of the genuine problems of the Canadian system - a lot of people visit the emergency room when they don't need to do so. I fully support a small user fee for using the emergency room, both as a revenue generator and a method to suppress misuse of it, and the idea is being considered.)

We also happen to have the single best children's hospital in the entire world (Sick Kids in Toronto) and some of the best research hospitals in the world, including the one that's currently the closest to figuring out a method of therapy and/or vaccine for SARS.

For people who think that socialized health care means FREE health care, I've got some news for you. It cost money, and you pay for it.

Well, duh...

First of all the income tax rates are much higher than what we pay here in the US,

No argument, although perhaps a bit hyperbolic. You know what? Paying the extra taxes doesn't bother me, given that I pay less in health insurance commiserately.

on top of it everybody has to pay a 15.5% sales tax whenever they shop for goods and services. That includes going to the restaurant, renting a car, renting a hotel rooms, getting your car fixed, getting your haircut, buying clothes, going to a baseball game etc.

Firstly, the fifteen percent sales tax is actually two taxes - a provincial income tax (that varies from province to province - in Ontario it's eight percent, in Alberta six, et cetera) that functions just like a state sales tax (which most states have), and a federal goods and services tax which is a flat seven percent.

Secondly, he's trying to make it sound like these taxes impoverish us, which really isn't the case because the relative cost of goods is cheaper in Canada. It's the Big Mac Index at work - the relative purchasing power of the Canadian dollar is stronger than the relative purchasing power of the American dollar.

A quick explanation of the Big Mac Index for those unfamiliar with it. I tripped down to Wisconsin last year for a bit of vacation. I stopped in at a Subway and bought a footlong turkey sub - it cost me $3.99 US. That same turkey sub, in Canada, likewise costs $3.99 CDN. $3.99 CDN = $2.88 US, at the moment - hence the Canadian dollar is buying more value than the American is. (It's called the Big Max Index because the standard measure is a Big Mac, but I don't really eat McDonald's so I just used a reasonable equivalent.) This tends to be more or less the same across the board. There are of course exceptions - little American flags are easier to purchase there, moose meat is easier to purchase here, et cetera - but overall, a Canadian professional in most areas has the same overall purchasing power as an American professional in the same area. (Again, there are exceptions - doctors being the most noteworthy.)

Beside the taxes on gasoline is through the roof. A gallon of gas cost about $3.00 (for people who don't know Canada pay the same price for a barrel of oil as the US do, taxes makes the price of gas so high).

This is true, but Canada isn't the standout here - the United States is. Gas taxes should be higher - we want to discourage use of a limited-quantity good that happens to be an environmental menace wherever possible.

And, frankly, given that gasoline taxes are earmarked directly for road improvements, I can live with it. I've driven on American roads plenty, and they're always in worse shape than Canadian roads.

The other perk that comes with the Canadian health care system is cheap medicine. Sometime it is as much as 70% cheaper to buy medicine in Canada than it is in the US. The reason for it is explained by the fact that Americans people pay for it. We pay an extra 70% here, so that the Pharmaceutical companies can sell their products to Canadian for 70% less. In other words American people subsidize the cheap medicine for Canadians, otherwise Canadians would not have access to cheap medicine. We also do it with the European countries, because in Europe they wont pay more than a certain amount for a specific medicine, so the cost is passed on to the consumers in the US.

Okay, this is tinfoil hat country at this point. There are several reasons Canadian drugs are cheaper than American drugs.

1.) Price controls. A competition tribunal monitors and occasionally resets drug prices. Factors in the ceiling price include R&D costs and overall need for the drug.

2) Drug plans. In addition to the hospitalization insurance plans, almost all the provinces have plans that cover prescription drugs and dental services for people on welfare or with low incomes. These plans often ask pharmacists to call doctors to recommend prescriptions be changed to generics or to a lower cost medication if the medication prescribed is above a certain threshold (which varies from province to province). Drug companies like to keep their prices below this threshold.

3) You can't advertise prescription medications in Canada. That lowers cost significantly.

4) Canadian doctors tend to prescribe the latest drugs less often. They generally wait until the drug has been prescribed for a few years to make sure it's safe before switching from their favourites, with the exception of obvious breakthrough drugs.

5) Many drugs which require prescriptions in the United States don't require prescriptions in Canada. Codeine is the most famous example, but some of the more powerful NSAIDS and some of the steroids used to treat arthritis are also available over the counter. Once a drug crosses from behind the counter to over the counter it gets a lot cheaper.

This of course explains why so many Canadians come down over the border for health care.

Not really. When Canadians come down over the border, they're doing it to see a certain specialist. Specialists can get overbooked, so there's overflow. (I fully believe we need to raise doctor's salaries in Canada, or alternately set up a form of equivalency testing that will allow immigrant doctors to practice more quickly. The main problem with our system is a lack of professionals.) In any case, the single-payer system will still cover the cost of the visit.

Are Canadians fed up with this? Some are. After 30 years of socialized health care, parties like the Canadian Alliance, and the Action Democratique du Quebec are becoming very popular. First item on their agenda privatizing the health care system. If there was a provincial race today in Quebec The ADQ (Action Democratique du Quebec), would get between 60% and 70% of the vote in a three party race.

This is fantasy. The Canadian Alliance has dropped from twenty-five percent support early last year to just over ten percent support across the country. As for the ADQ, we just had a provincial race in Quebec, and the ADQ got about fifteen percent of the vote (and only three seats in Quebec's provincial parliament out of over a hundred). The far right in Canada isn't gaining ground, but rather losing it.
vsp
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 1045/2042
EXP: 6309634
For next: 83165

Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3033 days
Last activity: 247 days
#33 Posted on 7.5.03 1137.04
Reposted on: 7.5.10 1137.16

    Originally posted by godking
    Flashes of brilliance amidst a swirling morass of yick


This is my favorite phrase of the week.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 1413/4700
EXP: 21583171
For next: 253491

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1269 days
Last activity: 1066 days
#34 Posted on 7.5.03 1202.08
Reposted on: 7.5.10 1202.50

    Originally posted by godking
    That same turkey sub, in Canada, likewise costs $3.99 CDN. $3.99 CDN = $2.88 US, at the moment - hence the Canadian dollar is buying more value than the American is.

The fundamental flaw in your ascertation is that the price of a sub in Wisconsin is not the price of a sub in Maryland, where the same sub runs $4.29. It all depends on the costs of materials and the demand for the product.


    Originally posted by godking
    This is true, but Canada isn't the standout here - the United States is. Gas taxes should be higher - we want to discourage use of a limited-quantity good that happens to be an environmental menace wherever possible.

For what purpose? To cause inflation? To make goods more expensive? To pray to the golden calf of phony environmentalism? Or to further burden the American taxpayer?


    Originally posted by godking
    And, frankly, given that gasoline taxes are earmarked directly for road improvements, I can live with it. I've driven on American roads plenty, and they're always in worse shape than Canadian roads.

This varies from state to state. Besides, the last time I remember being on the QEW it was in bad shape.
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst
Level: 103

Posts: 1372/3029
EXP: 11258143
For next: 213302

Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 15 days
Last activity: 12 days
AIM:  
#35 Posted on 7.5.03 1352.04
Reposted on: 7.5.10 1353.10

    Originally posted by vsp

      Originally posted by godking
      Flashes of brilliance amidst a swirling morass of yick


    This is my favorite phrase of the week.



Yet another slogan for the Politics forum!
Mr. Boffo
Scrapple
Level: 114

Posts: 661/3844
EXP: 16155953
For next: 153664

Since: 24.3.02
From: Oshkosh, WI

Since last post: 451 days
Last activity: 412 days
#36 Posted on 7.5.03 1713.55
Reposted on: 7.5.10 1715.08

    Originally posted by vsp
    Regarding Dean, how many "far-left-wingers" have gun-control stances like this?

    "If you say "gun control" in Vermont, Tennessee or Colorado, people think it means taking away their hunting rifle. If you say "gun control" in New York City or Los Angeles, people are relieved at the prospect of having Uzis or illegal handguns taken off the streets. I think Vermont ought to be able to have a different set of laws than California."

    "I believe we should keep and enforce the federal gun laws we have - including the assault weapons ban and the Brady Bill - and close the gun show loophole using Insta-check and then let the states decide for themselves what, if any, additional gun control laws they want."
    (clipped from deanforamerica.com)


EGAD! A Democrat with Libertarian leanings! I think I've found my candidate!

Speaking of deficits, BTW, here in Wisconsin, we've sold all our tobacco payments, we're still way in debt, and some idiots agreed to not raise any traditional (i.e. income, property) taxes, meaning it looks like the only way to get the budget in order is to raise the cigarette tax 85 cents a pack. Now I don't smoke, but even I think $4.70 for a pack of cigarettes (which is what it comes to without the tobacco companies "subsidies") is insane.
godking
Chourico
Level: 36

Posts: 96/274
EXP: 300345
For next: 7768

Since: 20.10.02
From: Toronto

Since last post: 3905 days
Last activity: 3851 days
#37 Posted on 7.5.03 2127.42
Reposted on: 7.5.10 2129.01
The fundamental flaw in your ascertation is that the price of a sub in Wisconsin is not the price of a sub in Maryland, where the same sub runs $4.29. It all depends on the costs of materials and the demand for the product.

Which is why the Big Mac, which is set-priced by McDonald's by nation, is the standard for the index and why it's not called the Subway Turkey index. Regardless, the point is that the turkey sub isn't going to be $2.88 USD anywhere in the United States, and thus the Canadian dollar has more relative purchasing power. (Ironically, this is very slowly decreasing as the loonie advances in value against the U.S. dollar.)

For what purpose? To cause inflation? To make goods more expensive? To pray to the golden calf of phony environmentalism? Or to further burden the American taxpayer?

Maybe you missed it: "we want to discourage use of a limited-quantity good". Gasoline dependency is the US's biggest weakness and the biggest weakness of the West in general, it's kept countless tyrants in power, its use is environmentally hazardous, and there's a limited supply of it which is steadily dwindling - thus we should discourage its use.

This varies from state to state.

Yes, by their road budget. We have gas taxes directly linked to our road budgets for that reason - thus, drivers subsidize the costs of using the roads. Roads ain't free. The money has to come from somewhere - it might as well come from the people who, like, drive on them.

Besides, the last time I remember being on the QEW it was in bad shape.

Speaking as someone who's on it regularly, the QEW varies in quality from month to month - but it's the most heavily trafficked stretch of road in the entire nation, so it's really not a surprise that it's constantly being worked on.
Michrome
Head cheese
Level: 39

Posts: 123/330
EXP: 393612
For next: 11163

Since: 2.1.03

Since last post: 3832 days
Last activity: 2898 days
#38 Posted on 7.5.03 2343.07
Reposted on: 7.5.10 2348.05
You still don't seem to understand the most basic reason of all: Person X is not entitled to have person Y pay for his health care in America. I have worked hard to earn a good amount of money, and if I need healthcare now, I want it now...I don't want a waiting period. I know this sounds callous, but the people that work hard should not be punished with the responsibility of having to cover the healthcare of those that just have no desire to work. I mean really, why in god's name should I have to pay for the healthcare of some guy who shoots up heroin all day instead of going to work? It's not right, and the government was not set up to play the role of Robin Hood.

I heard Sean Hannity is running a concert with a bunch of stars to raise charity, and he's also taking private donations. Given the size of his audience, he is sure to raise millions and millions of dollars. If that had to be run through the government, intended recipients would only get 30 cents out of every dollar intended for them, but this way, they will get all of it. Americans are a sympathetic group. Look at the charity that was given after 9/11. If so much wasn't taken from our checks, we would all donate a lot more, and it would be far more efficient. Charity ought not be the government's role, and socialized healthcare is nothing more than mandatory government-run charity. If it was left to the people, we would come through...let us do it.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 1416/4700
EXP: 21583171
For next: 253491

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1269 days
Last activity: 1066 days
#39 Posted on 8.5.03 0603.32
Reposted on: 8.5.10 0603.59

    Originally posted by godking
    Which is why the Big Mac, which is set-priced by McDonald's by nation, is the standard for the index and why it's not called the Subway Turkey index.

I'm not certain about this. I've seen different prices for a Big Mac in different places: higher in NYC and DC, lower in suburban Maryland and the Virginia Tidewater.


    Originally posted by godking
    Maybe you missed it: "we want to discourage use of a limited-quantity good". Gasoline dependency is the US's biggest weakness and the biggest weakness of the West in general, it's kept countless tyrants in power, its use is environmentally hazardous, and there's a limited supply of it which is steadily dwindling - thus we should discourage its use

Hello? ANWR calling!
godking
Chourico
Level: 36

Posts: 97/274
EXP: 300345
For next: 7768

Since: 20.10.02
From: Toronto

Since last post: 3905 days
Last activity: 3851 days
#40 Posted on 8.5.03 0715.46
Reposted on: 8.5.10 0716.01
I'm not certain about this. I've seen different prices for a Big Mac in different places: higher in NYC and DC, lower in suburban Maryland and the Virginia Tidewater.

Fine. Here's a link detailing the Big Mac Index in full and why it's a reliable measure used by economists the world over as an indicator of purchasing power and tool for determining the accuracy of exchange rates.

Hello? ANWR calling!

If you seriously think ANWR is going to make a particular windfall towards overall gas reserves, you've been smoking the Republican pot too much. It's not going to change the fact that the world, overall, has about a fifty-year supply of oil left if we continue to use it at current rates; even if ANWR is pure oil everywhere it gives us another five years max.

You still don't seem to understand the most basic reason of all: Person X is not entitled to have person Y pay for his health care in America.

Remove "health care" and insert "education", or "garbage pickup" or any other of a dozen essential public services, and it's still the same callous argument. Health care is a public right, not a fringe benefit.
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 NextThread ahead: The religious right and the environment
Next thread: Palestinian diplomat exposes Israel's crimes in Iraq
Previous thread: This can't be good
(1620 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Anyone Catch the debate?Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.212 seconds.