As far as papers say the American are going to choose a democrate for next presidency. Why should people vote to more tax? Well, one might say that Democrates are going to pull the forces out of Iraq, if this is true they should reduce the tax not increase it. Frankly I believe the more people get lazy the more they vote to higher tax because they calculate that they get more than they pay. It would be a reliefe if somebody prove me wrong. According to my experience tax is used in 2 ways: 1. To maintain a corrupted government. 2. To given to some lazy people so they can sleep in their free homes, use drugs, spit on the street, swear, vandelize, shoplift and so on. Note: Of course we need strong police, better roads and so on but I don't think Democrates are very keen on these issues.
Not that I'm american, but I'm pretty sure that the democratic platform doesn't include finding money for "some lazy people so they can sleep in their free homes, use drugs, spit on the street, swear, vandelize, shoplift and so on." Also, how about raising taxes to help pull your country out of the financial pit the Republicans have dug over the last eight years? Or, how about gearing up to deal with social security once the baby boomers start to retire? I see this line of thinking (in regards to the OP) when people stop looking long term and only consider personal gratification and the betterment of themselves. "It would be a reliefe if somebody prove me wrong." Sean
Well you mentioned 2 things. The first about the economy and the second about social security. About the first one: How the Democrates are going to better the economy using the tax? Have they promised anything? What steps are they going to take? About the second: Do they have public social security in US? If that true no increase in tax would help because they have to increase the tax year after year after year until it gets above 100%.
Social Security is going to bust regardless of taxes. All the baby boomers are/will be retiring very soon. But yes, there is Social Security...a misnomer if there ever was one. When I am eligible to collect it...I will possibly get a couple hundred bucks a month-if that. I think it started to fail in the late 80's not really sure. I dont follow or really care. I am on my own without a net. On that note back to work
So, I probably shouldn't continue on with this since, like I said earlier, I'm not American so I'm not really that interested in what's going on. I do know that during the Bush administration some taxes were lowered, which seems far out of line with the spending that occured. I don't claim that the Democrats know what their doing. Really, I think that America is in a bit of a pickle the same way that we are here in Canada. In Canada, the Liberals should be the ones in charge, but they screwed up too much so were need to but the Conservatives in for a while until the Liberals get their act together (as I see it) Likewise, I don't know that the Democrats can handle running a country, it depends on how strong the President elect is. But I do know that the Republicans messed up pretty bad. Sean
Nothing says that explicitly, but in ways that's what they've created. The war's cost is hardly a comparison to medicare deficits within 15 years. Not a trend I want, but not the end of the world. SS will die...it's just a matter of delaying it or making it politically ineffective. The best thing that could be done is to slowly allow and promote more savings through privatization of given programs. The average American invest around 10% into a 401k. The necessary amount of money to have a long-term retirement would be much better if they were allowed more of their SS money into private investment. 401k experts suggest 19% for the future age of America. I would explictly put laws in that force people to the max limit upon entrance into the 401k process....then they'd have to ask for adjustments to lessen such. Thus implying a higher savings ratio. Also I would imply they must enter a seminar to understand the way retirement plans work, as many American are grossly ignorant. To even make it more 'progressive', I wouldn't mind it be more or less done from bottom-up...slowly. Reaching more of the middle class and effecting their futures. As I'm not really worried about the rich person's retirement. Or coarse medicare has to be addressed as well. That will be complicated...and I'll leave that to another thread.
Your medical system is in trouble. The ratio of doctors to patients is horrendous, and is on a decline. I guess it could be the fact that you guys pay your doctors around 50K dollars less than ours...but I'm not quite sure what the definitive answer is. The interesting thing is you have a great deal of foreign doctors immigrating to your country...but that's not really helping. I suppose part of it can be held to your 'voucher-like' system of medical care....where it's part private in how it's ran and public funded accordingly. Given you Canadians try to budget medical care, I'm not sure your wages are meeting demand standards. America's problem is we're too fat...lol. But then again, we're not has homogeneous as Canada, Japan, and most of Europe.
Ahh, seems I've bitten off more than I can chew, heh. Its certainly true that neither one of our countries is in good shape right now (I'm assuming your American) and I'm not entire sure what the full issue is. I will tell you that being Canadian (its sort of like that other C word, you know the people that wear a lot of read and used to drink vodka) and being a little more left wing than most makes me really cringe at your suggestion that social programs become privatized. While I agree that most governments don't manage them properly, I can't see how privatizing still allows for the lower class to get the help that they require. Sean P.S. Thanks for your sig, now I'm stuck watching Tool on YouTube again
I think the baby boom era is going be difficult for everyone. Japan's in trouble if the don't change. Yes, I'm 'American'. You're medical programs are private,...they're just publically-funded. I believe in the private market. I do believe it requires a very detailed touch to do such, but any left-leaning person knows we depend on the private market...not the public market for survival. I understand the uncertains involved, but I believe it's ultimately a matter of political and social practicality to be small government. The questions that we should ponder are....at what point are these programs not needed? At what wage level or wealth level...? Can a majority of society exist off of these just fine? I believe the answer to that is fairly obvious...most people can live without that. So why not completely refine the level of dedication we make to such programs, and not exacerbate the need of government? GOTCHA....
Okay, so I agree with you that practically speaking, small governments is the most feasible, or at least is less prone to political erosion. I also agree with you that the private market is necessary, made more so by the fact that without a free market (or close to it) very little innovation will occur. However, I think that in practice having a very strong private market and small government leads to a faulty marketplace since what is to stop big business from jacking up the entry barrier of the market? Also, in regards to your comment about refining our level of dedication to social programs, what exactly do you mean by this. I am predisposed to disagreeing that we choose to leave the lower class without support. But I'm certain that it would be very controversial to provide support only to the lower class and leave the middle and upper classes to fend for themselves. I believe that its our social responsibility to help provide for the unfortunate. I don't claim this to be a perfect system but I think that allowing some urchins to benefit is better than not helping those in true need. Just as a bit of perspective on this, often when I think of social programs I'm thinking of things such as health care and education. As a Canadian, I'd feel very lost without nation wide health care at essentially no cost. Also, to further cement where my political views lie, I was a little bothered when sales tax was lowered here in Canada since I thought it to be irresponsible of the Conservative government to not spend that money on health care and education, both of which are in trouble. Sean
I think by the dems winning, it was a wake up call to a lot of conservatives....so if they get their act together, conservatives will be back in power soon....
Pretty-much. It tends to provide higher growth, productivity, and of coarse what you said. There are certain markets that are more prone to (monopolies) than others. Specifics of the situation have to be taken into the account, although generally most things could be left alone...and frankly they are. I believe you regulate only to the amount that PROVES to be necessary. That of coarse would require a much larger debate over historical facts and circumstance. I mean....if certain areas exist well on their own, why introduce government into those areas. Generally I understand government helping those whom have temporary problems, but to expand government where it's not needed is very disheartening to me. I'm idealistically against most social programs, but I do believe mild version of keeping people from reaching the bottom is good. Although eventually people have to take hold of their responsibilities (in most cases). The health care does cost you...taxes... Think of your social programs this way. Will your productive class stay as big as your nonproductive class (children and retired)...permanently? If not, what sort of effect will this have on you tax receipts and consumption of healthcare? My opinion is that eventually with these programs you either 1)Have to raise immigration fairly high 2)Raise taxes fairly high 3)Reduce benefits All three have their problems. Raising immigration doesn't guarantee an educated workforce...which would ensure a much higher tax production. Raising taxes on the remaining productive individuals and businesses will stifle growth in private markets. And reducing benefits could be dangerous to the health of individuals. Understood. Taxes shouldn't be lowered unless spending is lowered at the same time. Atleast that's my perception. I'm more to the libertarian side of the road, but I do believe in 'progressively' lowering spending and taxes...not just one or the other. I'm also a big believer in rational immigration. A big reason why America has poverty is due to immigration policy. Poverty as a percentage of Americans (black, white, latin, asian) has gone down consistantly. The only reason we have poverty growth, is because we immigrate it. I'm for immigrating young 18-24 year olds...either college bound or educated. I'm also for those that fit particular market demands that the US can't yet accomdate ie the wages are rising too quickly. Now in some cases that may mean little education, but in most it will demand some. This way, America becomes a solid middle class, with smaller levels of poverty. Now of coarse people think we save the world by immigrating the poor and uneducated...but the truth is...those numbers are quickly replaced and the process continues. That's how I think of social programs. They're temporary, and it's much better to look at the long-term needs of countries and people...where they are. Deal with what they have. We can't immigrate it out of poverty and we can't create social programs that get them out of poverty (permanently). I like RFK. If you know anything about his social conciousness, you'll understand my beliefs.
My point is that Democrats are going to increase taxes and reduce the hugh expense of millitary actions in Iraq - not my words, their own -, so how come the American are going to choose them? I am very much interested in hearing a pro-democrate here to see what they have promised. Have they promised to spend this money on social security? If the answer is yes my question is how? Are they going to simply spread the money among the pensioner? Again if the answer is yes then how about the future? How long are they going to increase the tax to "solve" this problem? I don't think anybody believes that Democrats can and are going to spend the taxes wisely - no government is - so why the American are going to vote to them? .
"so why the American are going to vote to them?" Probably for the same reason Canadians voted the Conservative party in to government, because voting for the other party would be foolish given their current track record. To Rick Michael, This conversation has become increasingly difficult for me as I'm not entirely sure at this point what our disagreement is. It seems that we both have very ... interesting beliefs as far as governmental issues go. I know that I for one have some strange ideas. As is probably evident, I believe that big government is correct as far as social implications go, but I believe in a free and open market, which is somewhat contrary to big government. You seem to be saying that you agree with me that a free and open marketplace is best, however it seems that you want a tiered social program so that the lower rung has a temporary support system and the middle / upper class is left to fend for themselves. The issue there is, who pays for the temporary support? If its middle and upper class citizens then won't they feel justifiably upset? And also, where is the line drawn? And how exactly do we define temporary? I realize that some of those same questions can be asked of my idea, that we have a strong national social program, but certainly some of the "unfairness" of asking middle / upper class people to pay for the lower class is eliminated. What I don't believe is that people who are well of deserve more of the necessities of life than those that are poor. They are most certainly deserving of a richer life, but it shouldn't be at the expense of those less fortunate. As an example, I'm for outsourcing, but I'm against cutting corporate taxes. I believe that the whole charade of bolstering the north american economy by keeping jobs on american soil is a giant crock, and I also believe that there should be nation wide, balanced health care. Sean
Well, I know my idealistic view is private donations...but the pragmatic side of me says that government would likely be involved. As far as the upper class and middle class being upset...well, their assistance would be much more mild (fiscally) than all encompassing program, and it would be goaled towards ending poverty through temporary assistance. As a 'libertarian', even I wouldn't mind that, as long as it's geared towards self-reliance. Where's the line drawn...?...Most likely those around the poverty-line. Temporary would be anywhere from 4-6 years. I guess it would depend on the program. Unemployment only last from 6 months to a year. My line of thought is that there would be a mandate for education or job advancement. Something that would imply self-reliance. Why would a rich man need my assistance medically? That seems like the least progressive idea, ever. I guess you can say I understand mild progressive views. Any society should make it's goal to eliminate poverty within the mulititude of possible social interventions (namely education, temporary welfare, and moderate immigration). In a general capitalist society, poverty usually decreases (as it has in America). Although all that can be changed with bad immigration policy, terrible education, and unequally applied law . Outsourcing doesn't necessarily worry me. I'm more worried about energy outsourcing...depending on unstable nationalized states for energy. Thank god for Canada (seriously I mean that)...probably the only free-economy with oil. Nationwide healthcare has it's own economic problems. It's essentially a public means of budgeting healthcare...but it doesn't work that way in real life. Healthcare is a demand issue. No matter the problems they assert about the American system, I believe in the long-run it's the only one that will survive the baby-boom era or retirement. American Medicare just represents what is a world-wide phenemona (if one wishes to call it that), where our older people will assume more consumption...and thus create far too much in taxes for an economy to take on. It's an issue of savings appropriate to the time. The world in general hasn't realized a proper process to saving and spending. If you ever read into the banking system of America (pre-fed), you'll find out why our system was much better....irony in how the past is better at savings than the future.
So the American are going to vote to Democrates just because they don't like Reps, huh? Then why do we critisize poor palestinian for choosing Hamas over corrupted Fatah? - Don't get me wrong, I am pro Israel. - If Reps are not doing what the American wants at least they don't charge them for doing nothing but Dems are going to increase the tax for something that nobody knows what it is - or at least nobody on this forum knows.- The American are going to choose Democrates but nobody know why. Find a pro Democrate and ask them what Democrates are going to do if they are elected. You wouldn't get a single sensible answer. I believe they know why but they are ashamed of telling it. The truth is that the American are turning from a working nation to a lazy nation and lazy people are always in favor of higher taxes. Did I hear "No"? Then prove me wrong. Why do the American are going to vote to higher tax? . .