How long of a line to vote? [Archive]

View Full Version : How long of a line to vote?

Jim Clark

11-02-2004, 01:23 PM

Despite predictions of record turn outs I signed in at my precinct and was immediately escorted to voting booth #1. In and out baby.

jc

Stone

11-02-2004, 01:28 PM

Despite predictions of record turn outs I signed in at my precinct and was immediately escorted to voting booth #1. In and out baby.

jc

What time did you go? Apparently, I should have waited until the middle of the day because I got there at 7:30 a.m. and left at 8:50. What a disorganized mess.

-Jar-

11-02-2004, 01:29 PM

Despite predictions of record turn outs I signed in at my precinct and was immediately escorted to voting booth #1. In and out baby.

jc

Me too.. I went at lunch.. In and out.. though my wife reported that it was packed this morning. I'm sure it will be packed here pretty soon with all the commuters arriving back home from downtown Cleveland where many work.

-jar

Jim Clark

11-02-2004, 01:40 PM

11:30'ish for me. Just worked out that way although I'd planned on going much earlier. Stone, I hope you didn't see people bail.

jc

mad rhetorik

11-02-2004, 02:19 PM

Went at 11:45. Yup, in 'n' out for me too.

DarrenH

11-02-2004, 02:34 PM

I went at 10:30 a.m. and waited about 5 minutes.

Troy

11-02-2004, 02:36 PM

Wife went at 7 am. Long line. 40 minutes.

I went at 10. One guy ahead of me to sign in, but each booth (about 15) was full.

I noticed that the counter on the machine you feed the ballots into was on 121. 4 years ago, about the same time of day- 34. Turnout IS much higher than in previous years.

tentoze

11-02-2004, 02:56 PM

No wait- absentee ballot............

Slosh

11-02-2004, 03:23 PM

I work 25 miles away so couldn't do it during lunch. Went straight from work to poll and was there for 1.75 hrs. Last presidential election I was in and out in 5 minutes. Many, many, many people have given their lives for us to vote so I ain't about to complain.

BTW, if Emir Bush "wins" again ya can't blame me.

NP: Enon - High Society

Swish

11-02-2004, 04:16 PM

although the place was jammed when I drove past on the way to dinner at about 6 PM. And if the flip-flopper opportunist somehow wins, you can't blame me. ;)

Swish

audiobill

11-02-2004, 04:37 PM

In and out in 'bout five minutes.
Rolled up my sleeve and I was injected for free. Went around the dinner hour. A dozen or so nurses and about ten patients. Oh, Wait!! You guys aren't talking 'bout the Flu shot.

Just to let you all know,
Us Canadians are all watching with keen interest,
Bill

Dusty Chalk

11-02-2004, 09:54 PM

Funny thing is, the wait was mostly to look me up. There was a line of about 3 people for the A-G line, zero people for the H-O line, and about 25 people for the P-Z line, which is where I fall.

After that, it was "...in'n'out, baby...".

I don't mind, I'm just glad everyone cares so much this year. I think they're ashamed that things could have been different (either not as close, or completely different) four years ago if they had gone, so they're making sure they go this year.

Important? I disagree. Even with this turnout, it's still extremely close, indicating (to me, anyway) just how similar the two candidates are.

We need Ross Perot back. Either that or Gumby.

Troy

11-02-2004, 11:01 PM

Even with this turnout, it's still extremely close, indicating (to me, anyway) just how similar the two candidates are.

Similar?

Science or religeon?

Stem cell or not stem cell?

Iraq war or not Iraq war?

Tax the rich or not tax the rich? To pay for healthcare for everyone, or to not give a damn about people that can't afford to go to the doctor?

Rape the environment or not rape the environment?

Similar? Do we live in the same country?

On a different tack:

Why were the initial exit polls in favor of Kerry, but the actual counts 10% lower? Which was wrong and why?

I'm just fulla questions today.

Dusty Chalk

11-02-2004, 11:41 PM

JDaniel

11-03-2004, 05:19 AM

2 hours, 50 minutes in a blowing monsoon. Honestly, even with a rather large golf umbrella, I was soaked to my skivies. I had to go home and change clothes before heading in to work. But it was a small price to pay, considering most of the rest of the world doesn't get a chance like this. And if you don't like the winner, you get a chance to replace him in 4 years (something else most of the rest of the world doesn't get to do).

And I got pretty good at holding my umbrella in one hand, while holding my Dale Brown novel in the other.

JD (Libertarian at heart, Republican at the voting booth)

Stone

11-03-2004, 06:04 AM

kexodusc

11-03-2004, 07:02 AM

I voted Kerry, though a bit reluctantly...I just can't get myself to like either of these two goofs.
I think Bush is the most destructive president in American history, but I respect the dedication and consistent stance he has with his beliefs, even if I don't share them. He doesn't waver...I guess he's got a bit dignity that way. Being ignorant and being corrupt are two different things.

Kerry, I think he'd be better for America, but dang it, this guy hasn't done anything to deserve being president other than being in a race against Bush as "the lesser of two evils"...I don't think he should be rewarded with a term.

And this whole electoral college thing is really starting to tick me off...if the majority of Americans vote for someone, they should win PERIOD...a vote in North Dakota should have the same weight and impact as a vote in Florida or Ohio.

The good news is...we only have 4 more years of Bush worst case scenario...I hope we get some great candidates next time around...maybe Colin Powell for example...someone with integrity.

As for a third party...also being a Canadian citizen, I have a unique perspective on that...No freakin' way..you get too much vote splitting, meaning a country can be governed by a President with 31% vote or lower...that is dangerous. Also, because the choices are more abundant, parties cater to their hardcore fundamental supporters for votes rather than reach out to the undecided and common person. At least with a 2 party system there's effort to win the moderate voter.

Maybe ideally we'd have a playoff type system similar to Australia, but then we'd have to open a whole can of worms on that...so I guess we're probably stuck with 2 parties. I think the first and largest problem with democracy is the fact that organize parties can always exploit flaws or weaknesses in the system. I'm told that in Australia, the voters vote strategically against candidates, resulting in unkown, 3rd and 4th ranked candidates winning office...I guess that's not good either.

Could be worse, at least we CAN vote.

Finch Platte

11-03-2004, 07:16 AM

Altho I dropped it off at the polling place. It's the easiest way.

There were many more folks than last time.

If Bush wins, I'm gonna cry, then start breaking things. That guy rapes my dreams.

fp

-Jar-

11-03-2004, 07:42 AM

Mr MidFi

11-03-2004, 07:47 AM

Voted at 7:00 am, stood in line about 5 minutes or so. Pretty big turnout, but they were prepared to handle it. Very efficient. Kudos to the Kane County, IL election people!

Kerry ain't no prize, but dammmmn...

I'm willing to concede defeat at this point. But I have a sneaking suspicion about the electronic voting process in some counties of key states. The CEO of Diebold did state, publicly, that he would guarantee the state of Ohio for Bush. Google the Wired article on it. And, lo and behold, turns out their exit polling is out of whack with their vote counts.

kexodusc

11-03-2004, 07:58 AM

It's not a Bush victory that bothers me as much as the fact that all these anti-gay-marriage initiatives passed (esp the one in Ohio). We're all used to monkey boy..

However, what I'm now keenly aware of is how most of the people that I live and work amongst really feel about gay rights.
-jar

I have a problem with marriage being a part of the political and legal systems, period...
I believe that religion and state should be separate so there is no discrimination, favoritism, and no conflict of interest...keep Washington and the church separate.

Marriage is a religious institution, keep it in the church and let them police themselves without legislators telling them how to run their religion...

And everybody has the legal right to engage in "civil unions" (marriage without the religion part attached, recognized by governement for all legal purposes)..whether straight or gay.

Equal rights for all, and the freedom to practice religion remains...to me this seems like a simple way to have your cake and eat it too...

Ah well, we're probably getting way too into this subject for an Ar.com thread.

mad rhetorik

11-03-2004, 08:42 AM

They're both idiots who live in an elitist class and have no clue how to run the country -- Bush due to his fratboy IQ, and Kerry from his wishiwashiness. (Obviously an oversimplification, but you get the idea.)

Personally, I would like to have voted for the candidate that would get us out of this war with minimal casualties, especially ours (US of Americans). But I have no idea who that is: Bush isn't pulling out, and I don't have confidence in Kerry to do it right without getting inordinate amounts of people killed (at this point, we can't just pull out without making things worse for the people left behind).

I'll leave it at that, so as not to get too political, but that's example of the frustration I had with these two candidates, as I've had in many previous years.

It's not a Bush victory that bothers me as much as the fact that all these anti-gay-marriage initiatives passed (esp the one in Ohio). We're all used to monkey boy..

However, what I'm now keenly aware of is how most of the people that I live and work amongst really feel about gay rights.

I voted Kerry, though a bit reluctantly...I just can't get myself to like either of these two goofs.
I think Bush is the most destructive president in American history, but I respect the dedication and consistent stance he has with his beliefs, even if I don't share them. He doesn't waver...I guess he's got a bit dignity that way. Being ignorant and being corrupt are two different things.

Kerry, I think he'd be better for America, but dang it, this guy hasn't done anything to deserve being president other than being in a race against Bush as "the lesser of two evils"...I don't think he should be rewarded with a term.

And this whole electoral college thing is really starting to tick me off...if the majority of Americans vote for someone, they should win PERIOD...a vote in North Dakota should have the same weight and impact as a vote in Florida or Ohio.

The good news is...we only have 4 more years of Bush worst case scenario...I hope we get some great candidates next time around...maybe Colin Powell for example...someone with integrity.

As for a third party...also being a Canadian citizen, I have a unique perspective on that...No freakin' way..you get too much vote splitting, meaning a country can be governed by a President with 31% vote or lower...that is dangerous. Also, because the choices are more abundant, parties cater to their hardcore fundamental supporters for votes rather than reach out to the undecided and common person. At least with a 2 party system there's effort to win the moderate voter.

Maybe ideally we'd have a playoff type system similar to Australia, but then we'd have to open a whole can of worms on that...so I guess we're probably stuck with 2 parties. I think the first and largest problem with democracy is the fact that organize parties can always exploit flaws or weaknesses in the system. I'm told that in Australia, the voters vote strategically against candidates, resulting in unkown, 3rd and 4th ranked candidates winning office...I guess that's not good either.

Could be worse, at least we CAN vote.

I have a problem with marriage being a part of the political and legal systems, period...
I believe that religion and state should be separate so there is no discrimination, favoritism, and no conflict of interest...keep Washington and the church separate.

Marriage is a religious institution, keep it in the church and let them police themselves without legislators telling them how to run their religion...

And everybody has the legal right to engage in "civil unions" (marriage without the religion part attached, recognized by governement for all legal purposes)..whether straight or gay.

Equal rights for all, and the freedom to practice religion remains...to me this seems like a simple way to have your cake and eat it too...

Solid observations all. Couldn't agree more, especially with the "lesser of two idiots" sentiment. This election was a tough call for me.

I ended up voting Kerry, but the truth is it almost came down to a coin toss, considering how much I dislike both candidates and how I feel about their level of competence (or lack thereof).

IMO: Bush is a moron. He has gotten us involved in a war that is a waste of money and lives on the basis of "WMD's" that have mysteriously "vanished" into the ether; has a Veep and inner circle with open connections to Haliburton and other large corporations; claims to support American freedoms abroad while depriving us of them via the Patriot Act; masquerades as a "conservative" while approving every spending bill that has been passed by Congress; and is trying to return us to the failed economic policy of "Reagonomics." Those are just a few on his long list of mistakes and abuses. I'd go so far to say that his might be the most incompetent and corrupt Administration since Warren G. Harding.

Also IMO: On the other hand, I don't think Kerry is much better. He's just as much a member of the "old guard aristocracy" as Bush. His "flip-flopping" might work as a Senator and career politician, but not in the office of President. He may botch the war in Iraq and sacrifice many more lives (though at least he has an exit plan, or so he claims). I have a feeling that his campaign promises are mostly empty (aren't they all?). Anyway, this post is probably way too political for Rave Recs, so I'll stop there.

Looks like Bush has secured the popular vote by 51%. Ohio is probably going to be the deciding factor...this better not be a repeat of 2000.

-Jar-

11-03-2004, 08:57 AM

Anyway, this post is probably way too political for Rave Recs, so I'll stop there.

Looks like Bush has secured the popular vote by 51%. Ohio is probably going to be the deciding factor...this better not be a repeat of 2000.

No such thing as too Political. I've come to think of this place as an open forum for those of us who have a love of music. I have no problems with off-topic posts.

And I'm kind of glad Ohio isn't going to be "the next Florida."

It's over.. Kerry conceded.

-jar

mad rhetorik

11-03-2004, 09:03 AM

And I'm kind of glad Ohio isn't going to be "the next Florida."

It's over.. Kerry conceded.

Yeah...I checked the news 5 minutes ago and was about to make that edit.

Cue the mass exodus of Kerry-supporting Hollyweirdos to Canada. ; P

Ex Lion Tamer

11-03-2004, 09:11 AM

It's not a Bush victory that bothers me as much as the fact that all these anti-gay-marriage initiatives passed (esp the one in Ohio). We're all used to monkey boy..

At least your system allows the great unwashed to decide. Here in Canada the unelected supreme court decides on social issues like gay marriage. The prevailing attitude here is only the elite are equipped to make decisions on social policy.

Ex Lion Tamer

11-03-2004, 09:21 AM

To pay for healthcare for everyone, or to not give a damn about people that can't afford to go to the doctor?

I wonder how many Americans would think this way if they ever required healthcare in Canada - the great socialized healthcare paradise - where 3-month waits for MRIs are commonplace. If I had to choose, I'd take the American system any day over the Canadian system, as it is now consitituted.

Troy

11-03-2004, 09:55 AM

I wonder how many Americans would think this way if they ever required healthcare in Canada - the great socialized healthcare paradise - where 3-month waits for MRIs are commonplace. If I had to choose, I'd take the American system any day over the Canadian system, as it is now consitituted.

That's great if you can afford the MRI. You can get one today at the mall . . . for about $500. To a vast majority of Americans holding multiple jobs, there's just no way they can afford it. Unless they saved for 3 months . . .

Troy

11-03-2004, 10:05 AM

IMO: Bush is a moron. He has gotten us involved in a war that is a waste of money and lives on the basis of "WMD's" that have mysteriously "vanished" into the ether; has a Veep and inner circle with open connections to Haliburton and other large corporations; claims to support American freedoms abroad while depriving us of them via the Patriot Act; masquerades as a "conservative" while approving every spending bill that has been passed by Congress; and is trying to return us to the failed economic policy of "Reagonomics." Those are just a few on his long list of mistakes and abuses. I'd go so far to say that his might be the most incompetent and corrupt Administration since Warren G. Harding.

Also IMO: On the other hand, I don't think Kerry is much better. He's just as much a member of the "old guard aristocracy" as Bush. His "flip-flopping" might work as a Senator and career politician, but not in the office of President. He may botch the war in Iraq and sacrifice many more lives (though at least he has an exit plan, or so he claims). I have a feeling that his campaign promises are mostly empty (aren't they all?). Anyway, this post is probably way too political for Rave Recs, so I'll stop there.

Pretty much sums it up for me too.

So the choice was "a sure bad thing" or a complete unknown. I'll go with the unknown 10 out of 10 times.

Considering that there was so much weight put on moral issues there is way too much moral hypocracy in the Bush agenda. How can you kill 100,000 Iraqis, many of them non-combatants and then say that it's immoral to experiment on non-aborted fetuses from fertility clinics that would just be thrown away?

Ex Lion Tamer

11-03-2004, 10:38 AM

That's great if you can afford the MRI. You can get one today at the mall . . . for about $500. To a vast majority of Americans holding multiple jobs, there's just no way they can afford it.

I'm not sure I follow. Can they not afford insurance? Why? How much does health insurance cost? You're self-employed Troy, I'm sure that you have taken care of your heathcare needs. Should you be paying for those who are irresponsible enough not to look after theirs?

I'm not American, so maybe this is an over-simplification, but my impression is if you're truly in need (ie. on welfare or unemployed), healthcare is provided at no cost. If you're employed, but your employer does not provide group insurance coverage, it's up to you to arrange for it yourself. This seems reasonable to me, you just have to budget for it; housing, food, clothing, health insurance. I bet a good portion of those people who you say can't afford an MRI, or the insurance to pay for it, pay for cable TV, watch their big-screens, and spend their money on things far less important than health insurance.

I can't say for sure, but I'm almost positive that I pay more, probably a lot more, for my inferior health care through taxes, then you do for yours through insurance premiums.
Just the fact that MRIs are so easily accessible in the U.S. should tell you something. Guaranteed, that an MRI in Canada probably costs the tax payer triple the $500.00 that it costs in your country.

No system is perfect, I guess I'm just saying be careful what you wish for.

Troy

11-03-2004, 12:53 PM

I'm not sure I follow. Can they not afford insurance? Why? How much does health insurance cost? You're self-employed Troy, I'm sure that you have taken care of your heathcare needs. Should you be paying for those who are irresponsible enough not to look after theirs?

I'm not American, so maybe this is an over-simplification, but my impression is if you're truly in need (ie. on welfare or unemployed), healthcare is provided at no cost. If you're employed, but your employer does not provide group insurance coverage, it's up to you to arrange for it yourself. This seems reasonable to me, you just have to budget for it; housing, food, clothing, health insurance. I bet a good portion of those people who you say can't afford an MRI, or the insurance to pay for it, pay for cable TV, watch their big-screens, and spend their money on things far less important than health insurance.

I can't say for sure, but I'm almost positive that I pay more, probably a lot more, for my inferior health care through taxes, then you do for yours through insurance premiums.
Just the fact that MRIs are so easily accessible in the U.S. should tell you something. Guaranteed, that an MRI in Canada probably costs the tax payer triple the $500.00 that it costs in your country.

No system is perfect, I guess I'm just saying be careful what you wish for.

I'm on my wife's company insurance plan. We pay 50% for her, 100% for me. Hundreds every month. Coverage is limited at best. I pay every time I go to the doctor. I have to pay for all my prescriptions. We have no dental plan at all. They take credit cards. I'd have to be REALLY sick for Kaiser to give me an MRI. As a preventative measure? Never happen.

The healthcare provided to indigents for free isn't what I'm talking about. Aside from the fact that the care is horrible (seen it first hand) and wouldn't come close to a standard most people would find acceptable, it's about healthcare for the wage slave families that can't get a leg up on anything. There are more poor here than you think. The division grows every day because the guys at the top give themselves tax breaks on everything and put the burden on the shrinking middleclass.

It's not a question of people being too irresponsible to pay their way. Times are tough. Lots of people make 20K a year. They can't afford a car. They can't afford to eat out. Ever. How can you expect them to pay insurance on anything?

It's a question of medicine costing WAY too much, driven up by wastefull expenditures in the last 30 days of life and incredible R&D budgets.

It's a question of employers not willing to pay these extremely high med insurance costs for their employees. "We have to drop medical and dental cuz we can't afford it, even if you pay half".

I come from the school of thought that employers are supposed to take care of their people. Unfortunately, companies today treat employees like the computers. "Throw 'em away in 3 years and get new ones". This taxation on incomes over 200k (meaning business) to pay for medical insurance for the working class would FORCE business to pay for taking care of the people that they should be taking care of ANYWAY.

Swish

11-03-2004, 01:11 PM

Altho I dropped it off at the polling place. It's the easiest way.

There were many more folks than last time.

If Bush wins, I'm gonna cry, then start breaking things. That guy rapes my dreams.

fp

while I rejoice at my favorite pub tonight. I'll also help George Soros find the monastery he said he would find to live in if Bush won, and I'll help Ben Afleck, Bruce Springsteen, and company pack up so they can move out of the country.

Your bud,
Swish

JDaniel

11-03-2004, 01:18 PM

I come from the school of thought that employers are supposed to take care of their people. Unfortunately, companies today treat employees like the computers. "Throw 'em away in 3 years and get new ones". This taxation on incomes over 200k (meaning business) to pay for medical insurance for the working class would FORCE business to pay for taking care of the people that they should be taking care of ANYWAY.

Almost everyone has a choice.

Nobody forces anyone to go to work for an employer that doesn't "take care of their people". Your statement "companies today treat employees like the computers. Throw 'em away in 3 years and get new ones." is only a generalization. Some companies do this without a doubt. But many do not. My point is that the person chooses to go to work for such employers. There are plenty of employers who do offer good benefits, including health/dental insurance, to qualified employees. That person should take the initiative to actively seek employers who offer the benefits they are seeking. Even in down economies, companies hire. Maybe not your specific co., or not in the town you live in, but what about the company in the town 20 miles down the road etc... In my 20 or so years of being a working adult, I've never worked for a company that doesn't "take care of their people". Whenever I've gone on a job interview, I've asked just as many or questions as the person doing the hiring. I'm interviewing them too, and doing my research first.

Same as to where I choose to live. I get sick of hearing people complain about their school system. Then take some initiative and move. No way would I send my kids to lousy schools, or schools that I didn't believe were safe. I researched the heck out of where to buy a house before our last move. No way would I choose to move to a community with lousy schools.

But hey, that's just my philosophy. I choose not to work for a lousy employer, and I choose not to live where the schools are sub-par.

JD

Swish

11-03-2004, 01:43 PM

Pretty much sums it up for me too.

So the choice was "a sure bad thing" or a complete unknown. I'll go with the unknown 10 out of 10 times.

Considering that there was so much weight put on moral issues there is way too much moral hypocracy in the Bush agenda. How can you kill 100,000 Iraqis, many of them non-combatants and then say that it's immoral to experiment on non-aborted fetuses from fertility clinics that would just be thrown away?

if you checked out the exit polls. Only 18% mentioned moral issues as the reason for their voting choice. I don't think W is the second coming, but I could not fathom John Kerry and his trial lawyer sidekick leading this country. The liberal agenda is to unfairly and disproportionately tax those who earn more money, which smacks of socialism to me. I'm not saying you don't take care of the elderly, the sick and the needy, but at some point you have to say enough is enough. Our government should take care of our safety and our infrastructure, but they need to keep their hands out of our pockets, something that wasn't going to happen with Kerry in office. There are plenty of other reasons I don't like Kerry, but I'm not getting into that now.

Have you checked out the Fair Tax Plan? If not, I think you should. It would put an end to our federal income tax, for consumers and businesses, as well as social security tax. How can you not favor that? They would be replaced with a National Sales Tax on all new goods and services, putting an end to most tax cheats, eliminating the high cost for corporate tax accounting and the piles of paperwork associated with it. Don't take my word for, as if you would. Go to http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/materials/factsheet.html and read about it.

Swish, having a truly excellent day.

Swish

11-03-2004, 01:57 PM

Almost everyone has a choice.

Nobody forces anyone to go to work for an employer that doesn't "take care of their people". Your statement "companies today treat employees like the computers. Throw 'em away in 3 years and get new ones." is only a generalization. Some companies do this without a doubt. But many do not. My point is that the person chooses to go to work for such employers. There are plenty of employers who do offer good benefits, including health/dental insurance, to qualified employees. That person should take the initiative to actively seek employers who offer the benefits they are seeking. Even in down economies, companies hire. Maybe not your specific co., or not in the town you live in, but what about the company in the town 20 miles down the road etc... In my 20 or so years of being a working adult, I've never worked for a company that doesn't "take care of their people". Whenever I've gone on a job interview, I've asked just as many or questions as the person doing the hiring. I'm interviewing them too, and doing my research first.

Same as to where I choose to live. I get sick of hearing people complain about their school system. Then take some initiative and move. No way would I send my kids to lousy schools, or schools that I didn't believe were safe. I researched the heck out of where to buy a house before our last move. No way would I choose to move to a community with lousy schools.

But hey, that's just my philosophy. I choose not to work for a lousy employer, and I choose not to live where the schools are sub-par.

JD

I believe in a capitalist society, where everyone has choices to make and opportunity to succeed. Our daughter went to a very good public school back in the 90s, but when we moved, we put our son in a private school because we didn't like the public school he would have to attend. It was our choice and it cost us plenty, but we did what we felt was necessary. My company provides very good health care benefits, although I do pay premiums for them. Their benefits package was one of the biggest reasons I went there to work and why I've stayed for 8+ years.

Yes, our healthcare system is a mess, but I don't feel government intervention (i.e. a government healthcare system) is the best way to resolve it. I watched a recent news bit that explained that 25% of the cost of our medical care is for paperwork, and that's outrageous. In Canada the number is just 10%, so it makes sense that we need to simplify the process. Also, we need to cap the dollar amount on lawsuits that have created high malpractice insurance premiums resulting in higher medical costs for everyone else (are you listening John Edwards?). It just kills me to read the ads in our local paper run by ambulance chasers looking for people taking Vioxx. Just amazing.

Swish

Slosh

11-03-2004, 02:13 PM

Dubya's new America: now with 51% rednecks!

Moral issue? Isn't it more moral not to foist one's own morality on others? Is it moral to send soldiers off to die in the name of some pretend, omnipresent, all powerful entity - to kill those people that happen to believe in another pretend, omnipresent, all powerful entity? Oh, but they have all of that dangerous oil in their ground. Wouldn't want that to fall into the wrong hands. Besides, our Saudi friends don't seem to mind so much and what on earth do the have to gain from all of this anyway?

Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people.

Drugs are dangerous and addictive and are generating huge profits for bad people who do not have your best interests at heart. Alcohol and tobacco are manufactured and distributed by good people who help fund our elected officials so how can they possibly be bad?

Who needs clean water and air and safe food when there's profits to be had?

Let's let those heathen non-Americans look into stem cell research. Satan doesn't mind if he has to wait a bit longer for them.

Etc, etc. . . .

I'll give Dubya this - he sticks to his guns, because, of course situations and circumstances never change. Don't wanna be called a flip-flopper. In order to be a convincing liar ya gotta keep your story straight, ya know.

I can only hope all of this pandering to the religious right was merely a ploy to get elected and republican idiology (and not theology) will be the order of the day. If not don't be too surprised to see 60s/70s style radical leftist groups making a comeback in the not-too-distant future.

BarryL

11-03-2004, 02:24 PM

Despite predictions of record turn outs I signed in at my precinct and was immediately escorted to voting booth #1. In and out baby.

jc

How is it that Bush got more votes and won the popular vote this time with his track record than in the previous election before the war, recession, etc.?

Are the Democrats really that incompetent? Is the press out of touch with most Americans?

I suspect that a lot of people have been socially bullied by the likes of media darling Michael Moore to speak against Bush in public, but admire the job he's doing in private.

I'm glad that, being a Canadian, I didn't have to choose. I'm also glad that the Democrats had the decency to concede defeat. Now, what the U.S. economy needs is massive government deregulation (the complete separation of state and economics would be a radical start) and a renewed respect by politicians for the the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States.

By the way, how is it that if a Liberal is someone that believes in liberty, that be a bad thing? Only the socialists of the left could bastardize that term to mean someone who believes in more socialism and the destruction of liberty. And only the socialists of the right could accept that liberty = socialism.

To answer Troy's question about how the two candidates and parties are the same: they are both big spending socialists opposed to individual liberty and individual rights. They just have different agendas as to how much individual wealth they should confiscate and how they want to distribute it "for your own good" and for "the good of all Americans" to others who didn't earn it and who believe they are entitled to the property and wealth of others. If Bush really believes that tax cuts are a good thing because the money belongs to the people who earned it, then he should leave all of it with the people who earned it and let them decide how to spend it. But I don't think he really thinks that the money people earn should be theirs. But in my mind, in principle, it either is, or it isn't. You either take property rights seriously, or you don't. If you don't just admit it. To this extent, Kerry was more honest. He admitted that rich people and shareholders of big corporations shouldn't have the same rights as others.

Corruption and dishonesty in the business world pales compared to that of politics and politicians.

Troy

11-03-2004, 02:37 PM

Almost everyone has a choice.

Nobody forces anyone to go to work for an employer that doesn't "take care of their people". Your statement "companies today treat employees like the computers. Throw 'em away in 3 years and get new ones." is only a generalization. Some companies do this without a doubt. But many do not. My point is that the person chooses to go to work for such employers. There are plenty of employers who do offer good benefits, including health/dental insurance, to qualified employees. That person should take the initiative to actively seek employers who offer the benefits they are seeking. Even in down economies, companies hire. Maybe not your specific co., or not in the town you live in, but what about the company in the town 20 miles down the road etc... In my 20 or so years of being a working adult, I've never worked for a company that doesn't "take care of their people". Whenever I've gone on a job interview, I've asked just as many or questions as the person doing the hiring. I'm interviewing them too, and doing my research first.

Same as to where I choose to live. I get sick of hearing people complain about their school system. Then take some initiative and move. No way would I send my kids to lousy schools, or schools that I didn't believe were safe. I researched the heck out of where to buy a house before our last move. No way would I choose to move to a community with lousy schools.

But hey, that's just my philosophy. I choose not to work for a lousy employer, and I choose not to live where the schools are sub-par.

JD

While I think that you're right in that not all companies are about feeding the executive bonuses, it's a lot more prevalent than you seem to be assessing.

And while I think it's great that people with college educations and a leg up from the womb can pick and choose career paths and employers, MANY in this country cannot. Most people are . . . well, not idiots, bu tthey are not too bright. They are easily duped and taken advantage of. Corporrate America takes advantage of them to the fullest extent and from every angle. They cannot police themselves so the government has to do it for them. Your old pal Donny was wrong, "One bad apple DOES spoil the whole bunch".

Many people just CAN'T pick up and move to a place with better schools with families and relatives and roots. Life is just too complicated for that. it takes $ to move to the nicer area and it takes a good job to get the $, but to get the good job you need . . . education. It's a classic conundrum.

All of us on this board live a life of relative luxury and comfort. Some more than others. We are all smarter than average. It's REAL easy to say "pull yourself up by your bootstraps and change your life, but to most people, it's virtually impossible to get by, let alone get ahead. It is truly tough out there.

Do we just let these people wallow in their own stupidity and degradation? Even if you are heartless enough to say "Yes, screw 'em, they are nothing to me" that will bite you in the butt later when they steal your car and rape your wife because they have nothing to live for and nothing to lose.

Some people need help. Some people need insurance. Saying that ALL these people are taking advantage is like saying ALL corproations rape the staff as much as possible. These people won't just go away. They are a potentially huge resource to be tapped if given the chance. Corporate fat cats paying a little more tax to pay for health bennfits would be a step in the right direction . . . a HUMAN direction. One not based on "me first" greed for once.

Slosh

11-03-2004, 02:40 PM

Our government should take care of our safety and our infrastructure, but they need to keep their hands out of our pockets

Believe it or not I'm with ya Swish. I always thought republicans were for a smaller, less intrusive government and fiscal responsibility. Haven't seen that with Dubya so far. Not by a long shot.

Kind of ironic that we did see those things happen under Clinton (even if he was forced into it).

Troy

11-03-2004, 02:44 PM

if you checked out the exit polls. Only 18% mentioned moral issues as the reason for their voting choice.

Check again. 18% that said that voted Kerry, 81% that did voted Bush. It disgusts me that so many people see him as moral! Truly mystifying.

Of course, it's all about the Christian thing when you get right down to it. the fact that we have a man with his finger on the button that truely BELIEVES in revelations is . . . well, we're doomed.

I don't think W is the second coming, but I could not fathom John Kerry and his trial lawyer sidekick leading this country. The liberal agenda is to unfairly and disproportionately tax those who earn more money, which smacks of socialism to me. I'm not saying you don't take care of the elderly, the sick and the needy, but at some point you have to say enough is enough.

You have no idea what it's like out there in the wage slave world, do ya?

Swish, having a truly excellent day.

While American children go sick without care and only slightly older American childern die in Iraq for . . . corporate dollars.

Troy

11-03-2004, 03:00 PM

How is it that Bush got more votes and won the popular vote this time with his track record than in the previous election before the war, recession, etc.?

Incumbents during war seldom lose. Maybe this is the real reason he started the war in the first place? I've heard that from several people today.

Are the Democrats really that incompetent? Is the press out of touch with most Americans?

Apparently, yes. The dems shoulda run a southerner. They are the only ones to win for nearly 50 years. You simply GOTTA win some of the south. The urban areas simply aren't enough.

Kerry was weak. Bush got dirty, Kerry shoulda got dirtier. Shoulda called out the whole ex-drunk born again fake song and dance. He was too gentlemanly, opting to not go for the juggular. Another Dukakkis. Loser. Pussy.

I suspect that a lot of people have been socially bullied by the likes of media darling Michael Moore to speak against Bush in public, but admire the job he's doing in private.

I dunno, I've talked to A LOT of people today about this by e and phone. There are some seriously ANGRY people out there. Angry at their American brethren too full of themselves in their big fat American arrogance to see the world for what it is. Angry at the party for not finding a better candidate then Kerry. I've heard more than once "If we get another terrorist attack, we desrve it". God forbid it happens in one of the RED states.

Now, what the U.S. economy needs is massive government deregulation (the complete separation of state and economics would be a radical start) and a renewed respect by politicians for the the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States.

Welcome to fantasy island.

-Jar-

11-03-2004, 03:06 PM

ForeverAutumn

11-03-2004, 03:08 PM

mad rhetorik

11-03-2004, 03:30 PM

How is it that Bush got more votes and won the popular vote this time with his track record than in the previous election before the war, recession, etc.?

Are the Democrats really that incompetent? Is the press out of touch with most Americans?

I suspect that a lot of people have been socially bullied by the likes of media darling Michael Moore to speak against Bush in public, but admire the job he's doing in private.

I'm glad that, being a Canadian, I didn't have to choose. I'm also glad that the Democrats had the decency to concede defeat. Now, what the U.S. economy needs is massive government deregulation (the complete separation of state and economics would be a radical start) and a renewed respect by politicians for the the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States.

By the way, how is it that if a Liberal is someone that believes in liberty, that be a bad thing? Only the socialists of the left could bastardize that term to mean someone who believes in more socialism and the destruction of liberty. And only the socialists of the right could accept that liberty = socialism.

To answer Troy's question about how the two candidates and parties are the same: they are both big spending socialists opposed to individual liberty and individual rights. They just have different agendas as to how much individual wealth they should confiscate and how they want to distribute it "for your own good" and for "the good of all Americans" to others who didn't earn it and who believe they are entitled to the property and wealth of others. If Bush really believes that tax cuts are a good thing because the money belongs to the people who earned it, then he should leave it with the people who earned it and let them decide how to spend it.

Corruption and dishonesty in the business world pales compared to that of politics and politicians.

Judging by what you've written above, would it be safe to assume that you are a free-market Libertarian? I almost voted for the Libertarian party candidate but in our good ol' American two-party system that would be like a vote for Bush. So I went Kerry (I know, very un-Libertarian). Like Troy said, better the unknown quantity than an Administration that has already proven a thorough failure.

As a Canadian watching this whole debacle from 'cross the border, you make some good points--there are anti-Constitution cronies on <b>BOTH</b> sides, not just the right. And all of them were out in force this election--Moveon.org types, Hollyweird socialists, Communist intellectuals, warmonger rednecks, big business fascists, Religious Right nutjobs, etc. etc. For me the Religious Right have been some of the worst (those hypocrites Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson need to be disposed of, and I mean <b>NOW</b>). I'm embarrassed to admit that I'm a Christian if it means being associated with those wankers. There's a damn good reason why religion and state should not mix.

I'm glad that Kerry had the dignity to concede and not turn this into another Florida. Bad enough that our Supreme Court had to choose our President the first time.

The American press IS out of touch--either pro-Dems (CNN being one) or pro-Republican (Fox), both of them completely outside of the vast majority of Americans who I think want their bulls<a>hit served straight, if you get my meaning. Objectivity is a good thing, and it's being ignored in favor of 15-second soundbites and the spin of the day. We need a serious overhaul of American media, and we need one yesterday.

Also funny to note that "liberal" used to mean Lockean principles like limited government, property rights, etc. and now has been perverted into "socialist in democratic clothing."

I'm no fan of the Bush tax cuts. I'm not saying I support an inverted, Sweden-like "tax the rich to feed the poor" scenario, I just think they were poorly planned and are designed to favor the 1%. We've been through this already--supply-side does not work. All it does is give the rich more money to spend on a new yacht, while the average middle-class family gets what? $400? $600? With state taxes being raised through the roof to cover the discrepancy, nobody wins.

As far as Michael Moore is concerned, he is a hypocrite, charleton, and propagandist troll, pure and simple. The Democrats were only hurting themselves by aligning with him. He claims to support "the little guy" while living the Good Life on the Upper East Side. He writes sensationalist garbage and then turns around and accuses the media of doing virtually the same thing (see <b>Bowling For Columbine</b>). Moore takes facts and conveniently warps them into his own version of reality. Ex. Citing the fact that the NRA and KKK both formed not long after the Civil War (1871 and 1866 respectively), and insinuating that the groups are somehow associated with each other (nevermind the fact that they could not have been more opposed, the NRA being a "Yankee" organization, pro-civil rights, and often deliberately anti-KKK). Then there's his smear job on Charleton Heston, his painting of pre-invasion Iraq as some sort of paradise (in <b>Fahrenheit 9/11</b>), and plenty of other distortions. Joseph Goebbels and Leni Riefenstahl would be proud. Click here: http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

Oh yeah, and just as a disclaimer to all of the above: <b>IMHO</b>. ; P

Dusty Chalk

11-03-2004, 06:50 PM

So the choice was "a sure bad thing" or a complete unknown. I'll go with the unknown 10 out of 10 times.That sounds overly optimistic. What if the unknown was a deranged communist who "heard voices"? You have the chance to learn the unknown (I mean, it's not like he doesn't have a congressional record or anything) -- I did, and I wasn't happy with what I found out about him, neither.

I still say, "Gumby/Pokey in 2008!"

Ex Lion Tamer

11-03-2004, 07:45 PM

Many people just CAN'T pick up and move to a place with better schools with families and relatives and roots. Life is just too complicated for that. it takes $ to move to the nicer area and it takes a good job to get the $, but to get the good job you need . . . education. It's a classic conundrum.

All of us on this board live a life of relative luxury and comfort. Some more than others. We are all smarter than average. It's REAL easy to say "pull yourself up by your bootstraps and change your life, but to most people, it's virtually impossible to get by, let alone get ahead. It is truly tough out there.

Gotta call you on this one. My father-in-law came to Canada from Italy in the '50s with basically nothing, no education, no money, not speaking the language; nothing but a good work ethic. He's now a successful restaurant owner, a restaurant that provides a comfortable living for him, and his son and family. His story is far from unique in my country or yours. Now you're trying to tell me that people "CAN'T pick up and move to a place with better schools"? Nonsense. People don't move because the welfare state we've created has turned us into a nation of excuse makers who rely on the government to feed, cloth and take care of us, and of elitists who believe that people are basically incapable of taking care of themselves without the "help" of big brother. It's way worse in Canada, but the U.S. seems to be headed in the same direction.

Whooptee

11-03-2004, 08:27 PM

Audio Girl

11-03-2004, 11:12 PM

"Pharmaceutical lobbyists write the Medicare prescription drug bill".

Nothing could be further from the truth. I have been involved in the biotechnology, healthcare, pharmaceutical industry for over 20 years, and really must take exception with your statement because that is not who writes the Medicare prescription drug bill. If you have ever dealt with a government payor at a policy-impact level, you would understand that they are not influenced by lobbyists, etc. That policy is written internally, usually by government employees who have no medical background, and have no concept of what they are allowing/disallowing, or even the mechanism of action for the medication that they are reviewing. AND they certainly understand it much more than any physician, scientist, or clinical trial participant would ever be able to. Trust me, the policy makers within the government payor sector have no desire to support any bill or measure that a lobbyist places before them. No matter how powerfully perceived.

Whooptee

11-04-2004, 03:29 AM

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt1 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Audio Girl

Whooptee, please clarify your source or what this statement is based upon...really must take exception with your statement because that is not who writes the Medicare prescription drug bill... <snipped rest>

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Hi Mary,

What I was saying was that it was basically impossible to distinguish the administration and the Republican congress from the pharmaceutical industry during the drafting and passage of the Medicare prescription drug bill (formally known as Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003).

I really don't care about the little details of the bill, I care about the big picture stuff, like the provision that prohibits the government from negotiating lower drug prices. The low-level details were in all likelihood drafted by HHS staffers. But even that arm wasn't free of the drug lobby's influence. A deputy assistant secretary in the office of policy was a former PhRMA lobbyist named Anne-Marie Lynch. Prior to her HHS appointment she was a paid PhRMA lobbyist that lobbied against price controls on pharmaceuticals.

The drug and HMO lobby employed 952 lobbyists for the fight on this bill. 431 of those were what are referred to as "revolving door" lobbyists who had previously worked for the federal government. 11 of those were top staffers in the Bush administration and 30 others were former US senators and representatives.

After the passage of the bill, four top Bush White House officials left “to help industry clients benefit from the Medicare bill they wrote or promoted.” Those aides included Tom Scully, who was the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. In addition, three prominent drug industry and HMO lobbyists from the Medicare battle now hold senior health policy positions in the Bush administration’s Health and Human Services Department.

Then there's Rep. Billy Tauzin from Lousiana. He was the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. He spent months negotiating the bill to overhaul Medicare, often meeting in the basement of the Capitol with a small group of lawmakers, administration officials and industry groups. One of those groups was PhRMA which has offered him their leadership job. That post, sources say, would pay Tauzin more than $2 million a year. These meetings consistently excluded the 5 Democratic members of the committee.

A great place to research this issue is at the following link:

http://www.ourfuture.org/issues_and_campaigns/medicare/06_25_03_mr.cfm

In the end this bill was a great deal for the pharmaceutical companies and HMOS, but a bad deal for seniors. It really turns out to be nothing more than a subsidy for Big Pharma. 60% of the money spent on this plan is going to go to windfall profits for them. That's a lot of money! You can find a link to the study that explains that at the above web site.

I hope that clarifies what I said earlier for you and that you no longer take exception.

John

kexodusc

11-04-2004, 05:00 AM

First, I can't say for sure, but I'm almost positive that I pay more, probably a lot more, for my inferior health care through taxes, then you do for yours through insurance premiums.
Just the fact that MRIs are so easily accessible in the U.S. should tell you something. Guaranteed, that an MRI in Canada probably costs the tax payer triple the $500.00 that it costs in your country.

I have my doubts you've ever been to a US hospital, and I'm worried you believe too much of the current Canadian political BS about the sad state of canadian healthcare, and you think all US hospitals are like what you seen on ER.

I've sent more than 1/2 my life in 3 states, Michigan, Georgia, and North Dakota...there's no way in hell that the Canadian system is inferior...I'd say their about equal, both needing some serious fixing. I spent 11 hours in Atlanta waiting in an ER room to be treated for food poisoning...and it would have cost me $1200 if my insurance plan didn't pick up 80%.

Technology and quality wise, they're about even, but cost wise, the Canadian system has far less overhead and is far cheaper to run...not surprising since the insurance companies and drug companies don't have as much of a stranglehold on the system...

Second, you STILL believe that there's a significant difference in tax rates between the two countries...WRONG...the systems are different, but don't even kid yourself...I just moved to Canada to accept a payraise, I'm in a higher tax bracket here, but when it's all set and done, the difference MIGHT be 1 or 2% per year...factor in the cheaper cost of living and the whole cheap healthcare thing and I'm far better off financially in Canada...

SOME provinces are a bit harder on businesses, but my province (New Brunswick) has the lowest corporate tax rate in the country, and would be more than competitive back home in the US.

As far as the "unelected Supreme Court deciding social issues"...would you support a system that allows the wealthy upper classes to elect prejudiced judges to decide the fate of your country? The Canadian Supreme court doesn't make law..it interprets them..and interprets the fundamental freedoms in the Charter above all else...what's wrong with that?

Swish

11-04-2004, 05:28 AM

Capitalism will eventually fail because people are imperfect. Everyone is born with different intelligence, different abilities and different ambitions. Being "rich" requires the right combination of intelligence, ambition, financial smarts and opportunity. Capitalism causese the classes segragate, those at the top convince people in the middle that they "need" this and that, so many in the middle spend until they're broke, because, well, they lack the "smarts" Those at the bottom, there because they lack "ambition" and/or "opportunity" become dependent on charity and/or welfare. It all goes back to the way people are.

I participate in this system the best way I can because that's what you have to do. I help large corporations and banks collect money from those who can't pay their bills any longer, because they've spent all their money on "things" they've been brainwashed that they need by other large corporations, or just because they feel they need to have an SUV in the driveway to keep up with the Joneses. In turn, I get paid twice a month, enough money to pay for my house and buy food for my family and pay back those same banks that I, in turn, owe money to. For all my efforts, I'm snugly in the middle, worried about staying there and hoping that the economy doesn't go further south.

Quite a game isn't it?

-jar

Sorry Jar, I'm not buying that. Look, I was dirt poor when I was younger, and I got no entitlements from anyone. I worked my as<a>s off, paid my student loans and other bills on time, and worked my way up the ladder. I took some risks along the way, going to commission sales when I was fairly comfortable with my salaried job, but not really putting anything away for the future save a modest 401K. Yes, I'm doing quite well now, but I've stuck to my industry for 22 years and did whatever was necessary to survive. Living hand-to-mouth for many years taught me quite a bit about myself. I was one of 8 kids in my familly and, while I never went without food or clothing, it was anything but comfortable.

How did I survive those early years? For one thing, I didn't buy a new car until I was nearly 40 years old, and when I bought a used car, it was always more than a few years old. We did without for a long, long time, and I worried daily about how I would fund my kids education. Yes, I'm doing quite well now and have been for about 8 years, and now liberals like Kerry would have me share it with those not so fortunate. Do you see where I'm going with this? Nobody did me any favors along the way. Not that I was treated badly, but my daddy never got me a job, I did it on my own. I paid my way through college and still wonder how I did it. Yes, there are many who feel they need or derserve the best of everything and they want it NOW, but is that my fault? Is it the fault of "corpoorate brainwashing"? It comes down to personal accountability Jar, and I don't pity them when they fall on their faces. I feel sorry for them, but I don't pity them nor do I think that I should underwrite their plight.

Look, I don''t agree with all things Republican, but I certainly am a fiscal conservative while I'm a moderate when it comes to social issues. Tthe Democrats sealed their fate by running the most negative campaign that I've ever seen, showing great disrespect for our President and creating a backlash of support for him. Their snooty, elitist attitude, making Bush out to be an imbicile is what makes us Republicans so defensive and what brought us out in record numbers. HATING BUSH IS NOT A PLATFORM that could succeed. Kerry had no vision except that he wanted to unseat Bush, and we saw through that facade. If the Democrats hope to win the next election, they need to tone it down considerably and move a little closer to the center if they expect to gain any Republican votes. "Vote for me and I'll raise your taxes". Genius, pure genius. At least they won't have to resort to bashing Bush in 2008. They should also keep guys like Ted Kennedy, who should be in jail for murder, as he does nothing but cast a shadow over the party.

Regardless of what most liberals think, the economy is strong, with home ownership at a record high, interest rates at record lows, unemployment at near record-lows, and most other economic indicators are very strong. The Bush tax cuts are working, regardless of what you think or what Kerry told you. As for the war in Iraq, that's a tough one, but one I support because I do believe we are fighting the most important war of my lifetime, the war on terrorism. I would rather rid the earth of that vermin over there than here or brace myself for another 9/11. What you probably don't know is that my son will be deployed in Iraq within the next few months, so I need to continue my support of the efforts by our troops. I am very concerned for his safety, but proud that he volunteered for military service and will be honoring his country at a level that I will never be able to do.

Hey, we can go back on forth on this stuff for months, but the bottom line is that Bush won, the Republicans control the House and Senate, and will move their agenda along at a swift pace. I think we will all be better off because of it, but we'll have to wait and see, won't we?

Yer bud,
Swish

Swish

11-04-2004, 05:43 AM

Check again. 18% that said that voted Kerry, 81% that did voted Bush. It disgusts me that so many people see him as moral! Truly mystifying.

Of course, it's all about the Christian thing when you get right down to it. the fact that we have a man with his finger on the button that truely BELIEVES in revelations is . . . well, we're doomed.

You have no idea what it's like out there in the wage slave world, do ya?

While American children go sick without care and only slightly older American childern die in Iraq for . . . corporate dollars.

and I'm quoting this from today's newspaper, ""A fifth of all voters said moral values were the most important issue in the campaign, and three out of four of those voters went for Bush". Do the math Troy, because you're not making any sense or you misunderstood the data. I also heard the same numbers on NPR yesterday as I was driving home from Philly. I don't usually listen to such liberal radio, but I wanted to hear Kerry's concession speech and Bush's acceptance speech. What a great day! ;)

Swish

Swish

11-04-2004, 05:55 AM

I've been a depressed mess all day long over this election. I voted against Bush. I have so many issues with the way he's run this country. The trade and budget deficits are out of control and he wants to give more tax cuts? 84 of the 250 largest corporations in this country paid ZERO TAXES in at least one of the last 3 years. Companies like AT&T and Boeing and PepsiCo actually made more money after taxes than before, each not paying a dime in taxes and receiving billion dollar rebate checks instead. It might be okay if these companies were re-investing, but capital investment for these 84 companies was actually down 8 percent. Kowtowing to big business is what this administration is all about. 35 years of hard fought environmental legislation has been undone during this administration. The SuperFund is gone, purposely (mis)managed into the ground. Coal industry lobbyists are appointed to top positions in the Department of the Interior. Oil executives and lobbyists write our energy policy. Pharmaceutical lobbyists write the Medicare prescription drug bill. It's one thing to be pro-business, but this administration has gone way, way over the line. I honestly don't know why anyone that works for a living would vote Republican. Then again, I'm on the opposite side of him on just about every issue, whether it's his anti-science stance, stem cell research, health care, Iraq or gay marriage, so I guess that makes me a loony lefty liberal socialist.

John

If you saw an earlier post of mine, I would love to see the Fair Tax Plan enacted, although it's probably a pipe-dream. It would eliminate all federal income tax and social security tax, for all consumers and businesses. The IRS claims they collect only about 75% of the taxes that are owed, and the system we created has added unnecessary costs to all goods and services (think of all the auditors, accountants and paperwork required to meet the demands of the IRS), along with the cost of the IRS itself. A national sales tax would end all of that waste and cheating on taxes wouldn't be an issue, at least not nearly as big as it is now. We own a small cash business but, unlike many others, we report 100% of our sales and pay our fair share. I could name dozens of similar local businesses who hide most of their sales and escape most of their tax bite, and they're all over the country. Just because they have a cash register doesn't mean they're reporting those sales. Trust me on that one.

Anyway, read more about it at http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/materials/factsheet.html.

Swish

Ex Lion Tamer

11-04-2004, 06:20 AM

I have my doubts you've ever been to a US hospital, and I'm worried you believe too much of the current Canadian political BS about the sad state of canadian healthcare, and you think all US hospitals are like what you seen on ER.

You're almost right. The only time I've spent in a hospital was bringing my Dad to the emergency room at Bellvue in NYC. No wait in the Emergency room (it was a possible heart attack, so that would have probably been the case in Canada as well), and the care was in his words exceptional. My only other evidence is anecdotal, and second hand, my Dad again, was in a car accident in Florida in the early '80s. He was quite badly burned, the care was, he felt first rate and better than he thinks he would have received in Canada...(to his dieing day he feels that he would have died from equivalent injries had they been sufferred in Canada.) He was air ambulanced from the sight of the accident (Pompano Beach) to Gainseville. he had three skin grafts in a 1 week period. When he was transferred back to Montreal, scheduled skin grafts were cancelled on 2 seperate occassions because of labour unrest in the hospital at the time. A fairly typical occurrence even today. He also liked to tell about the indigent man in the bed next to him, who was receibving as good or better care than he was, though he had no way to pay.

I spent 11 hours in Atlanta waiting in an ER room to be treated for food poisoning...and it would have cost me $1200 if my insurance plan didn't pick up 80%.
There isn't a system in the world that can prevent long emergency room waits for those who don't "need immediate care". Impossible to get away from a triage system where some will have to wait. As for the cost, at least you know what that visit would have cost, maybe we would think twice in Canada if we saw what the cost was to the taxpayer for hospital visits, maybe it would keep people from showing at emergency rooms when they have a cold...a not uncommon occurrence.

Technology and quality wise, they're about even, but cost wise, the Canadian system has far less overhead and is far cheaper to run...not surprising since the insurance companies and drug companies don't have as much of a stranglehold on the system....

The latest studies I've heard quoted is that Canada has the highest per capita health care cost in the western world...about twice the cost of the American system.

Second, you STILL believe that there's a significant difference in tax rates between the two countries...WRONG...the systems are different, but don't even kid yourself...I just moved to Canada to accept a payraise, I'm in a higher tax bracket here, but when it's all set and done, the difference MIGHT be 1 or 2% per year...factor in the cheaper cost of living and the whole cheap healthcare thing and I'm far better off financially in Canada....

I'm surprised to hear that, but I won't argue about it, though I will ask if you're factoring in the "hidden" taxes and not so hidden taxes...ie Federal and provincial sales taxes? Generally higher property tax? Outrageously high gas prices (because of taxes)? Deductibility of mortgage interest in the U.S? Etc, etc. Tax freedom day in Canada was sometime in late June, I believe, this year.

As far as the "unelected Supreme Court deciding social issues"...would you support a system that allows the wealthy upper classes to elect prejudiced judges to decide the fate of your country? The Canadian Supreme court doesn't make law..it interprets them..and interprets the fundamental freedoms in the Charter above all else...what's wrong with that?.

Well, don't get me started on the Charter, what good is a Charter that can be overriden at anytime by any Provincial Government, by the "Notwithstanding Clause"? Why do you say "the wealthy upper classes" are electing the judges...isn't it one man one vote, or are the wealthy only allowed to vote for judges? As for the respective Supreme Courts, I am not in a position to argue which one is better, but I do think that the Supreme Court the way it is constituted right now in Canada is more often then not an arm of the Liberal Government to make (interpret?) laws that they don't have the guts to take a firm poisition on, (abortion, gay marriage). My argument though is that it is in fact better to have the people decide on issues like gay marriage, then to leave it in the hands of a few elite.

We think in this country that we are so morally superior to Americans...aren't we forward thinking with our laws on gun control (a fiasco) and gay marriage? I submit that if Canadians were ever permitted a vote on social issues, like gay marriage we would find that we are much closer to our American neighbors in basic ideology than we let on. But that will never happen, because our government knows whats best for us.

kexodusc

11-04-2004, 06:35 AM

Regardless of what most liberals think, the economy is strong, with home ownership at a record high, interest rates at record lows, unemployment at near record-lows, and most other economic indicators are very strong.
Swish

Low interest rates are not a sign of a strong economy...they're a sign of forced desperation. Especially with ultra-low inflation. We aren't starving by any means, so the economy isn't as bad as, say, Japan's has been for the last 14 years, but relative to most other developed/G8 countries (ie: Europe, Canada, China) since Bush took office our currency has depreciated so much it's not funny. The economy has plummeted.
We've lost more jobs as a percentage of employment than any other 4 year period since the great depression. The only reason unemployment numbers don't make you want to put a bullet through your head is because of the decades old and outdated method of calculating it...a system that only keeps pressure of the politicians.

No, the economy isn't okay, and Bush's tax cuts aren't helping to stimulate it much...but they are helping people get through it, which is what is needed. Problem is he keeps spending like a madman on bad ideas, when he should be giving even more money back to the public.
We'll pull out of this eventually, but not because of Republican or Democratic policies, but because of the need and will of the American people to succeed.

kexodusc

11-04-2004, 07:04 AM

There isn't a system in the world that can prevent long emergency room waits for those who don't "need immediate care". Impossible to get away from a triage system where some will have to wait. As for the cost, at least you know what that visit would have cost, maybe we would think twice in Canada if we saw what the cost was to the taxpayer for hospital visits, maybe it would keep people from showing at emergency rooms when they have a cold...a not uncommon occurrence.
Except they thought my problem was either my spleen had ruptured or I had appendicitis...we were shocked that "food poisoning" was the result...a good chunk of the bill was for "nuclear medicine" tests...If I had appendicitis, I'd be dead...and if your father was an uninsured american, instead of a Canadian with the support of medicare, the US hospital would have left him for dead too.

The latest studies I've heard quoted is that Canada has the highest per capita health care cost in the western world...about twice the cost of the American system.

You haven't read any published reports in the last decade then...there was a big one earlier this year that talked about the small amount of red-tape and redundant costs in Canada's system. Canada's not perfect but one thing we're good at is bragging when we're good at something. We have one of the most efficient, low cost health care systems in the world here, and as another poster earlier in this thread suggested, the difference was by some huge margin...15% or more compared with the USA. The US is currently spending millions studying the Canadian system to try to copy it. It was frequently an election platform issue in many States, referring to how much cheaper Canada runs it's healthcare system.

I'm surprised to hear that, but I won't argue about it, though I will ask if you're factoring in the "hidden" taxes and not so hidden taxes...ie Federal and provincial sales taxes? Generally higher property tax? Outrageously high gas prices (because of taxes)? Deductibility of mortgage interest in the U.S? Etc, etc. Tax freedom day in Canada was sometime in late June, I believe, this year.
Hidden taxes? you don't think the US has those? Even with the sales taxes (which many states have), gas tax, and property tax (which is way lower in Canada for the most part, try owning property near Detroit or Atlanta, the only exception I can see is Vancouver, where it was about par with Seattle). There's not nearly as big a difference as you're led to believe. Factor in the value Canadian social programs offer (health care, education, pensions) and its not even close...Public schools in Canada are often better than private schools in the USA...when I moved to Canada as a kid in grade 6, I was put in the stupid class because I was so far behind what the Canadian kids were doing they thought I was dumb...University tuitions in Canada are dirt cheap...health care is dirt cheap...I'd argue these are 2 social programs used by all that more than offset GST.

So much tax stuff varies by province and state it's hard to do a comparison, but I will say I make more money in Canada, and will retain a greater share of my salary, while the cost of living, including entertainment, is alot cheaper than the US. The only downside I've seen to Canada, is that low paying jobs in Canada are a bit lower. The difference isn't much, but Canada isn't anywhere near as highly taxed as Stephen Harper and Ralph Klein would have you believe. 10 years ago, well...things were different, in BOTH countries.

Well, don't get me started on the Charter, what good is a Charter that can be overriden at anytime by any Provincial Government, by the "Notwithstanding Clause"? Why do you say "the wealthy upper classes" are electing the judges...isn't it one man one vote, or are the wealthy only allowed to vote for judges? As for the respective Supreme Courts, I am not in a position to argue which one is better, but I do think that the Supreme Court the way it is constituted right now in Canada is more often then not an arm of the Liberal Government to make (interpret?) laws that they don't have the guts to take a firm poisition on, (abortion, gay marriage). My argument though is that it is in fact better to have the people decide on issues like gay marriage, then to leave it in the hands of a few elite..
Ouch, I'd never live in any country that allowed the majority to restrict the rights of the minority in the interest of "democracy". Justice shouldn't be a tool of democracy...it should be politically independant...in both countries it isn't, but in the US, it's far more political. Watch when Bush appoints anti-gay, anti-abortion judges here in the next little while...Kerry would have appointed pro-stem cell judges etc...that's not justice, that's an extension of politics.

We think in this country that we are so morally superior to Americans...aren't we forward thinking with our laws on gun control (a fiasco) and gay marriage? I submit that if Canadians were ever permitted a vote on social issues, like gay marriage we would find that we are much closer to our American neighbors in basic ideology than we let on. But that will never happen, because our government knows whats best for us.

Yeah, Canadians are pretty high on themselves...well the Canadian left wing is anyway...but I wouldn't argue Canadian gun control is a fiasco...it's just another botched administrative program...the truth is, Canada has almost as many guns per household as the US, but because of restrictions, the murder rate is a fraction of a percentage as much...I don't know why, don't have all the details, but there must be something right about the system.

I have no doubt that most Canadians would vote against gay marriage too...the problem I have with that, is it's not right that a majority could persecute a minority...let's use an extreme example...If the majority wanted to bring in slavery, say against the French, despite the Charter protecting people from that, under your proposed system, it could...Wrong...the Charter is the highest law in Canada...it is interpreted by the courts to apply to all...hence any restrictions on marriage for gays is unequitable (despite irrelevant religious beliefs) and violates this Charter.

Marriage doesn't belong in the legal system at all..it's a religious institution...instead implement "civil unions" for all couples in legislation, and let people get married by thier churches rather than have it recognized by the legal system. Government and church don't mix. Marriage should be between you and your God (if applicable) not between you and government.

BarryL

11-04-2004, 07:47 AM

[QUOTE=mad rhetorik]

I wish America was the fantasy land that I wish it was.

I really liked Obama's Democratic convention speech. I think he understands what the founding fathers were trying to do, and what needs to be done to really protect individual rights. He demonstrated a passion and a vision for what it means to be an American.

There are fundamental secular moral PRINCIPLES that I believe almost all American's believe in, including the fundamental right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. It will take someone with immense courage and wisdom to unite the country once again around these basic principles. The big challange is to convince people that morality comes before politics rather than starting with politics and then trying to derive a morality to justify the political ends.

I hope someone in America comes forward who can do this to save America, and thereby, the world.

kexodusc

11-04-2004, 07:57 AM

I hope someone in America comes forward who can do this to save America, and thereby, the world.
I'm not sure who exactly said this, or what they were trying to convey, but I hope it's not what I think it means...
Much of the rest of the world is doing quite well, I think we should worry about fixing our own problems before even contemplating playing Global Police...

There's a name for the last group that talked like that... :D

ForeverAutumn

11-04-2004, 08:15 AM

Stone

11-04-2004, 08:28 AM

Marriage doesn't belong in the legal system at all..it's a religious institution...instead implement "civil unions" for all couples in legislation, and let people get married by thier churches rather than have it recognized by the legal system. Government and church don't mix. Marriage should be between you and your God (if applicable) not between you and government.

Then what if there's a split? Who decides how to divvy up the assets? Who decides who gets the kids and whether and when there's visitation? Who decides if there's child support? A priest, minister, or rabbi? Your argument sounds good on the surface, but practically it would be a disaster.

Oh, and the government certainly doesn't require people to get married to do things together, or even to live together. It's a choice they make. You could still be committed to one person and to God in doing so, while not being legally married.

nobody

11-04-2004, 08:33 AM

kexodusc

11-04-2004, 08:35 AM

Sorry Forever Autumn, let me explain...what I'm trying to say.

I don't want to take rights away from anyone...
Right now, the Canadian legislation is dependant on Christian definitions (Marriage, not capital"M") that discriminate against non-christian practices. This is fundamentally wrong...

I don't believe that legislation should use the term "Marriage" as it is so synonymous with "Christian" marriage definitions...instead, let's replace "Marriage" with "civil union" at the legal level, between 2 people that provide ALL the tax, 401K/RSP, pension, common law etc, benefits to a couple (basically what we have now if you were a married atheist, hetero couple). This would allow gay marriages (small "m") without imposing on the churches After all, most atheists I know don't get married in churches, they get married by a justice of the peace or something.

So if a Christian couple wants to get Married, they do it in the church, the traditional legal marriage liscence becomes a "civil union liscence" to make it legally binding. This way a gay couple can enjoy all the legal privelidges of any hetero couple, and NO church is forced to change its religious practices by any government legislation.

The fact that marriage is recognized to have its roots as a religious concept, should be enough for all to agree to remove it from legislation...church and state should remain separate. Not every citizen is Christian, and shouldn't be disadvantaged for not being so.

Then the freedom to practice religion (also guaranteed in both Canada and the USA) would then allow people to be Married (by whatever definition their church defines it as).

To answer your question...this would mean a hetero, atheist couple can be married via civil union (not small "m" to denote the non-religious use of this term)...and a gay christian couple can also enjoy "civil union"...furhtermore, if they want to Married in a religious ceremony, that can be done in a church.
Hence, a christian couple would be both Married and in a legal "Civil Union" at the same time...

kexodusc

11-04-2004, 08:38 AM

Then what if there's a split? Who decides how to divvy up the assets? Who decides who gets the kids and whether and when there's visitation? Who decides if there's child support? A priest, minister, or rabbi? Your argument sounds good on the surface, but practically it would be a disaster.

If there's a split, then common law "divorces" would end the "Civil Union" and the normal divorce laws and rules would apply! No differen than in any other marriage...instead of calling it "marriage" you're calling it a "Civil Union"... What's the problem here???

nobody

11-04-2004, 08:39 AM

Oh...and what happened on election day?

The Republicans called he Democrats a bunch of pansy <a>***gots who were afraid to kick ass in the desert and wanted to let homo's get married and they turned a slew of rural rednecks and evangelicals out to vote along with their usual supporters in the high tax brackets. A cynical strategy to be sure, but an effective one.

The gay issue was huge whatever anyone wants to say. The old union vote, which is dwindling along with the loss of union power is the same working class group who don't want nothin' to do with supporting issues like gay marriage. The Democrats have lost these guys and they're gonna have to make real changes to get them back or get used to being marginalized in elections.

The only other hope is that since for the first couple hundred years only white people were allowed to vote, we should go a hundred years or so and just let black folks be the only voters for a while. I got my fingers crossed for this one.

Swish

11-04-2004, 08:39 AM

Low interest rates are not a sign of a strong economy...they're a sign of forced desperation. Especially with ultra-low inflation. We aren't starving by any means, so the economy isn't as bad as, say, Japan's has been for the last 14 years, but relative to most other developed/G8 countries (ie: Europe, Canada, China) since Bush took office our currency has depreciated so much it's not funny. The economy has plummeted.
We've lost more jobs as a percentage of employment than any other 4 year period since the great depression. The only reason unemployment numbers don't make you want to put a bullet through your head is because of the decades old and outdated method of calculating it...a system that only keeps pressure of the politicians.

No, the economy isn't okay, and Bush's tax cuts aren't helping to stimulate it much...but they are helping people get through it, which is what is needed. Problem is he keeps spending like a madman on bad ideas, when he should be giving even more money back to the public.
We'll pull out of this eventually, but not because of Republican or Democratic policies, but because of the need and will of the American people to succeed.

what I've seen paints a much different picture. Consumer spending is up, corporate investiments are up, and job creation is up by a large %. Kerry would have you believe they're all low-paying jobs and that all the good jobs are going overseas, but that's only partially true. We're in a global economy and need to change the way we do things. Corpations are burdened by high taxes and we need to end the quaqmire we've created with our federal income tax and enact the Fair Tax Plan. I really, truly think it would work and stimulate our economy to heights we've never seen. Then again, I could be wrong.

As for low interest rates being a sign of desperation, home ownership creates wealth, and many more people have been able to afford their first own or to buy a better home because of the low rates. My first home has an interest rate of 10.25% and I had perfect credit! I'm now sitting at 5.125, exactly half of that first number, and my low payments allow me to spend money on things I enjoy like cds. :D I'm in the mortgage industry so these low rates have created a ton of opportunities for me and my sales team, along with the many customers who are buying theirr first home, a vacation home, or investment properties. It's all good if you ask me.

Swish

Stone

11-04-2004, 08:41 AM

I actually totally agree with kex on this one.

Why would a split be any harder if people had a civil union than a marriage? You would dissolve a civil union just as you divorce, in a courtroom. You would have the same legal status for assets and such as in a marriage.

Civil union would be the legal status, and marriage would be the religious status. If you want the legal benefits currently afforded a marriage, you would want to get both. Only difference would be the certificate you turn in after you get your religious ceremony is that it weould say civil union at the top instead of marriage. Your marriage would just be the religious ceremony if you want one.

And, to the athiest thing, just get a civil union. No need for a ceremony to god if you don't believe in him.

Personally, I think the whole difference between civil union and marriage is just semantics that the democrats came up with to try to straddle the line with the right.

After I read the first couple paragraphs of your post, I thought "Isn't this all just semantics?", and you summed it up that way. I really don't see much of a difference at all, frankly.

Not every citizen is Christian, and shouldn't be disadvantaged for not being so.

You completely lost me. What's stopping a person from getting married if they're not Christian?

If there's a split, then common law "divorces" would end the "Civil Union" and the normal divorce laws and rules would apply! No differen than in any other marriage...instead of calling it "marriage" you're calling it a "Civil Union"... What's the problem here???

No problem, except it's just a name change from what's now in place.

kexodusc

11-04-2004, 08:54 AM

I'm not giving Bush all the credit either...low interest rates were required to stimulate a pathetic economy...part of the problem was Clinton's administration, part of it was just the cyclical nature of the economy, but Bush didn't do enough to help it. We've lost alot of ground to the international community...both parties are to blame for that.
Investments, and consumer spending, have only gone up RECENTLY, the last year or so...they never should have been as low as they were!!! And they're not up to the point where interest rates go back up higher to where they should be...

If Bush's tax cuts had actual TEETH to them, there'd be more consumer spending on non-essential goods, more economic investment, creating MORE jobs...spending billions in other countries fighting wars we can't really win, without any other justification isn't exactly productive.
Not that I like Kerry's options any better...That guys got National Bankruptcy written all over him.

Fact remains Bush did lose more jobs than any other president, and it's in spite of him that we're slowly pulling out of it...

And with a few minor tweaks, I like the Fair Tax Plan.

kexodusc

11-04-2004, 09:01 AM

You completely lost me. What's stopping a person from getting married if they're not Christian?

The problem stopping a person from getting married isn't their religion, it's their sexual orientation...right now, gay couples aren't given access to the same "legal priveledges" (marriage) that exist for hetero couples because the laws use a RELIGIOUS definition of marriage...gay couples can't marry.
That doesn't speak well to equal rights for all, here, the gay couples get left out, but the government can't legislate religions to change their definitions either.

So the definition of marriage has to change in a way that gives everyone, regardless or sexual preference or creed, the same legal rights, in they eyes of the government, without imposing requirements on religous organizations (ie: forcing them to marry gays if they don't want to).

It's not just semantics, it's equality across the board, and separating the Church from State definitively.

BarryL

11-04-2004, 09:13 AM

I'm not sure who exactly said this, or what they were trying to convey, but I hope it's not what I think it means...
Much of the rest of the world is doing quite well, I think we should worry about fixing our own problems before even contemplating playing Global Police...

There's a name for the last group that talked like that... :D

Al Stewart has a line in his song Russians & Americans that I always thought was very astute ; "A county is more an idea than a place." What I was thinking about was a leader who could lead through the promulgation of positive ideas in support of a renewed vision of America, more aligned with the America seen by its founding fathers, of a country united behind the idea of liberty and man's natural rights, not ruled by brute force. And certainly not a world ruled by America's military might or threat thereof. America, and the world, needs a new renaissance. The last thing I would want to see in the world is a global government ruled by the U.N.

What we have in America and the world today is politics by brute force. As Bruce Cockburn wrote, "The trouble with normal is it always gets worse."

Ex Lion Tamer

11-04-2004, 01:51 PM

We have one of the most efficient, low cost health care systems in the world here, and as another poster earlier in this thread suggested, the difference was by some huge margin...15% or more compared with the USA. The US is currently spending millions studying the Canadian system to try to copy it. It was frequently an election platform issue in many States, referring to how much cheaper Canada runs it's healthcare system.

You can't only look at the cost side, you have to look at supply of services as well. Maybe it is cheaper in Canada, though I'm still sceptical, but just try to move to a new city and find a family physician, or as I said in my responmse to Troy, get an MRI, or look at how many surgeries get cancelled or delayed. My mother moved to my area, has been here over a year and has been refused by every doctor she's approached. Doctor's aren't taking any patients because it doesn't make sense for them because they're already at their patient quota. Doctor's from Canada are flocking to the States to have the freedom to run there practice as they see fit. A system is not only about the end user and the cost to them it's also about the provider and how they are treated.

University tuitions in Canada are dirt cheap...health care is dirt cheap...I'd argue these are 2 social programs used by all that more than offset GST. Here's where we part company. I don't believe that a University education is an entitlement, it should cost what it costs, not be subsidized by tax dollars.

Ouch, I'd never live in any country that allowed the majority to restrict the rights of the minority in the interest of "democracy"..

Hate to break it to you, but you do. In Quebec, the rights of the English minority have been usurped in the name of protecting the French culture and language ever since Bill 22 was introduced in 1976, and it continues to this day.

Yeah, Canadians are pretty high on themselves...well the Canadian left wing is anyway...but I wouldn't argue Canadian gun control is a fiasco...it's just another botched administrative program" It's a fiasco because it makes criminals of law abiding gun owners and does nothing to combat the problem of hand gun in our cities.

..the truth is, Canada has almost as many guns per household as the US, but because of restrictions, the murder rate is a fraction of a percentage as much...I don't know why, don't have all the details, but there must be something right about the system.

Exactly they spent billions solving a problem that didn't need solving.

As for the gay marriage issue, I have no problem with gay couples having the same rights as heterosexual couples, rights to spousal benefits and the like. I do have a problem with the gay rights lobby insisting that the word marriage be used. Just another way the left has eroded our traditional symbols, (ie. Christmas and Easter have turned into secular holidays), in a misguided effort to keep from offending "minorities".

ForeverAutumn

11-04-2004, 02:00 PM

As for the gay marriage issue, I have no problem with gay couples having the same rights as heterosexual couples, rights to spousal benefits and the like. I do have a problem with the gay rights lobby insisting that the word marriage be used. Just another way the left has eroded our traditional symbols, (ie. Christmas and Easter have turned into secular holidays), in a misguided effort to keep from offending "minorities".

If they can't use the word "marriage" then they don't have the same rights, do they? :confused:

On the healthcare issue...I work in the life insurance industry. There is an insurance product available in both Canada and the US called Critical Illness insurance. The product works very similar to life insurance only, instead of your family getting a chunk of cash when you die, you get the chunk of cash if you are diagnosed with certain life threatening illnesses.

Most of the Canadians that buy this product do so, so that they can afford to jump the border into the US for faster/better treatment. What does that tell you about the perception of our Canadian healthcare system?

ForeverAutumn

11-04-2004, 02:03 PM

Al Stewart has a line in his song Russians & Americans that I always thought was very astute ; "A county is more an idea than a place." What I was thinking about was a leader who could lead through the promulgation of positive ideas in support of a renewed vision of America, more aligned with the America seen by its founding fathers, of a country united behind the idea of liberty and man's natural rights, not ruled by brute force. And certainly not a world ruled by America's military might or threat thereof. America, and the world, needs a new renaissance. The last thing I would want to see in the world is a global government ruled by the U.N.

What we have in America and the world today is politics by brute force. As Bruce Cockburn wrote, "The trouble with normal is it always gets worse."

It's about time someone tied this thread in with music! :D

I'm just doing my best to get us to page 4!!!!

jack70

11-05-2004, 04:54 AM

It's not a question of people being too irresponsible to pay their way. Times are tough. How can you expect them to pay insurance on anything?
It's a question of employers not willing to pay these extremely high med insurance costs for their employees. "We have to drop medical and dental cuz we can't afford it, even if you pay half". I come from the school of thought that employers are supposed to take care of their people. Unfortunately, companies today treat employees like the computers. "Throw 'em away in 3 years and get new ones".
I don't disagree with your basic sentiments Troy. But don't you wonder WHY many ( hardly all) tend to treat their employees that way? Ever wonder WHY medical costs are 3-4x that of inflation? The reality is that it's precisely GOVERNMENT that's the main reason.

This taxation on incomes over 200k (meaning business) to pay for medical insurance for the working class would FORCE business to pay for taking care of the people that they should be taking care of ANYWAY.
That's outright socialism, and no, it would only make things worse in the long run. You'd force some businesses (most of which are small one's of the type you want to punish) into bankruptcy, and others overseas to avoid confiscatory taxes. The way you get lower costs & higher quality is by providing a free marketplace, allow competition, and give people free choice. This is how any other market works (our food, computers, or toilets)... with the direct result of greater choice, lower prices, and better quality. The problem with healthcare is primarily because government has gotten TOO involved into it. (where do you think HMO's came from? answer: Teddy Kennedy). This is a typical result when government sticks it's nose into things it has no business doing... (you'd think more people would realize this by now).

Now, why should an EMPLOYER provide heathcare anyway? You don't buy your house, fire, life, or car insurance from your employer... or with a similar group of people on your street, do you? The reason is that wage & price controls (always a stupid idea) that were a result of WW2 made it illegal for companies to increase wages to attract better workers, so they got around it by offering the "benefit" of health insurance, which escaped those federal price controls. We now accept it as part of our wages... but the truth is... it's the main problem. You'd NEVER expect your employer to provide your food... and that's far more important than medical care.

The other problems of "inflation" of healthcare costs, where they've gone up 100-500% more than normal inflation is a DIRECT result of governmental interference. Troy, how would you be effected if THE GOVERNMENT required logs, forms, reports and hundreds of regulations on the minutia of what you do every day? The answer is it would cost you more... in time, effort, and in the end... COSTS. You'd have to raise your prices, work longer and have less in the end to show for it. Solution: GET THE FRICKIN GOVERNMENT OUT!

The result of such governmental control is the rationing and poor quality you get in many Euro countries and Canada. Doctors salaries in those systems are capped, so they come to the US where they can earn what they are willing to work for ( not as a pseudo-governmental employee). And we need Doctors deciding on medical decisions, NOT a bunch of fat inefficient governmental bureaucrats doing it.

Doctors & hospitals now practice defensive medicine, simply to avoid litigation (read: "extortion" by lawyers). It's only one reason for rising costs. It's also forcing MD's away... in my state alone 1000 MD's left last year after complaining (w/o any resolution) to the state lawmakers. I know one MD who's in his 50's who gave up medicine completely... just the type of experienced doctor we need. Houston... we have a problem.

Now, maybe you think a fully governmental run medical system will be better ,but it won't. It will make doctors governmental employees, and medicine will go the way of the dept of motor vehicles. Sound good? Don't fall for the scare tactic pseudo "reasoning" of the left here. One reason liberals have lost so much power over the past few decades is that most people reject this model... they're smart enough to know it's a trap that's worse than today's problems are. Get the government OUT... fix the marketplace so it's fairer and free-er. You really need to start reading a wider (read:more conservative type) of opinion writers... professional economists who know what the hell they're talkin about, instead of listening to moron politicians who pander to voters fears and barely got C's in their remedial high-school math courses. (/rant)

Capitalism will eventually fail because people are imperfect. Everyone is born with different intelligence, different abilities and different ambitions. Being "rich" requires the right combination of intelligence, ambition, financial smarts and opportunity. Capitalism causese the classes segragate, those at the top convince people in the middle that they "need" this and that, so many in the middle spend until they're broke, because, well, they lack the "smarts" Those at the bottom, there because they lack "ambition" and/or "opportunity" become dependent on charity and/or welfare. It all goes back to the way people are.... Quite a game isn't it?
Gee, that's awfully negative Jar. It's true we're all born unequal, but at least in this country you have the ability to achieve according to your work (effort) from the freedom we have. The only alternative to the liberty we have here is a more socialistic government, and that's PROVEN to lead to misery. You REALLY think, say, Cuba would be cool? Socialism= shortages, blackmarkets, slavery (forced to work) for the state, imprisonment and secret police, faceless bureaucrats, and often outright bloodbaths. No thanks. Capitalism, for all it's flaws, is so much better than the alternatives... it's not even worth debating.

Most people, in 99% of countries, for centuries and centuries have NEVER had what we have. Even people but a century ago would consider the world we live in as "miraculous" -- the quality and choice of food, freedom to travel, health and longevity, and hundreds of smaller things. Concepts like "leisure" and " entertainment" etc , were as rare as hens teeth. Today, it seems the focus of many of our lives. Watch some of the recent "reality" programs on PBS that mimic what daily life was really like in the 1600's (New England), 1700's (London), and 1800's (American West)... the drudgery, death and misery... just to survive ecery day. Our collective historical memories are way too short.... sometimes I think we're spoiled rotten. Or, you can walk the streets of New Delhi or Central Africa to get a wake up call. In the end, we have much more control of our lives than the rat-race sometimes makes us think. Methinks you may be in need of a little vacation, or a few beers.

Also funny to note that "liberal" used to mean Lockean principles like limited government, property rights, etc. and now has been perverted into "socialist in democratic clothing."
It's not really a "perversion"... it was a general change of accepted definitions over the centuries. Many notions, words and ideas change their meaning over time. It's really only a "problem" when using those terms relative to earlier times. Better to use the term "left-wing" instead of liberal.... it's not perfect, but it doesn't slam the term "liberal" quite so badly.... LOL.

I also heard the same numbers on NPR yesterday as I was driving home from Philly. I don't usually listen to such liberal radio...
I've listened to NPR for probably 2 decades. I agree, it's gotten gradually worse in it's political slant to what news it gives, and how it words those stories. But it still does a good job when it comes to science and the arts, so I still listen. As a libertarian, I'm one of the rare people who not only listens to NPR, but Pacifica (commie-radio) Radio, Rush Limbaugh, Imus, and Laura Ingraham. They all offer things worth knowing. BTW, the old WSJ (Wall Street Journal) TV program that used to be on C-NBC has re-emerged on PBS. It's generally on weekends, Sat night for 1/2 hr. Probably the best "talking heads" TV political show. Worth seeking out if you want to be informed in a truthful way. Yeah, gotta give PBS kudos for adding this (although not ALL PBS stations broadcast it).

..one of the things that struck me as ironic from the very beginning is how concerned Bush was about the freedom and the rights of the Iraqi people, while he steps on the freedom and rights of gay Americans.
Bush said flat out he likes/prefers the idea of "civil unions" with all the proscribed legal consequences of what marriage gives. (I saw the interview, but the media is so biased you rarely see anything but anti-Bush "goofy" stuff). He, like most Americans, doesn't think religion should be FORCED to change their ideals by the GOVERNMENT (get it, all you who are so afraid of church & state coziness?). If the right wing was putting pink triangles on people, I'd be concerned, but the left's preoccupation with this subject is simply an anti-religion, Bush-hating INTOLERANCE than anything. Sorry, but Republicans's are NOT anti-gay. And the overwhelming referendum in many states is NOT about gay rights... it's a backlash aimed at activist judges, who with dictatorial zeal thwart the will of the legislative process and the people. Quite simply, the people are fed up with such judges NOT obeying the law, as they are required to do.

So what's wrong with Bush's solution of giving "gay unions" all the civil rights and privileges of "marriage" without co-opting religion with the boot of government? Personally I wish both side would just shut the F-_k up about it all. Maybe fix the billions in Medicare fraud, our tax structure, social security, etc etc. Myself, Personally I'm just an "atheist for Jesus".

Judging by what you've written above, would it be safe to assume that you are a free-market Libertarian? I almost voted for the Libertarian party candidate but in our good ol' American two-party system that would be like a vote for Bush. So I went Kerry (I know, very un-Libertarian).
I pretty much agree with every point you made in your post. As a libertarian, I guess that makes sense? But although I voted libertarian in the state/local elections, I went for Bush in the National. I wasn't going to, but a few months back I started reading many of the left wing/ Dem/ Kerry Blogs and sites. The absolute hateful stuff I saw (smacks of 30's era Germany) so turned me off -- the fear-tactics, and outright lies, and absence of real logical debate on real issues (like you find on the conservative and libertarian Blogs) made me so angry I had to vote against such intolerance.

The fact Kerry had no solid positions on much of anything made me think he didn't deserve being voted for anyway. The only positive thing I can say about him is that he isn't as bad as that crook Al Gore (remember Al's "no controlling legal authority" and Marcia Hsia and her dozens of intimate e-mails with Al, and her subsequent 25 year prison sentence for illegal corruption?)

As for Kerry vs Bush.... Kerry had absolutely NO ideas on the future... on ANY problems (that I could frickin' tell.... ) He'd say one thing and then contradict himself the next day. Typical Senator... with absolutely NO leadership skills that governors, CEOs, and Presidents need to have. Bush, is at least going to TRY to simplify the IRS MESS (tax hell), save Social Security from it's inevitable death (something Clinton could'a/ should'a done had he any balls... Democrat Moyniham urged him to fix this inevitability, but he (Clinton) showed no leadership). Those 2 things by themselves make Bush a far better choice than Kerry.

The other troubling thing about Kerry was the lightweights he surrounded himself with.... his military, economic advisors etc. I saw over a half dozen of em interviewed on CSPAN and other TV shows. They seemed more predisposed to being a second rate high-school teachers than high governmental officials. I was NOT impressed.

Finally, anyone who lived in Boston for 30 years and picks Eddy Yost as his "fave Red Sox player" is either someone who'll say anything to get elected, or a complete moron... probably BOTH. (Yost never played for the Sox).

Many people just CAN'T pick up and move to a place with better schools with families and relatives and roots. Life is just too complicated for that. it takes $ to move to the nicer area and it takes a good job to get the $, but to get the good job you need . . . education. It's a classic conundrum.
Well, I'd differ with you there... most can... they just lack the desire or moxie. I do agree with you that it might not change a lot for many though. But your contention about being "trapped" is exactly what most Europeans face today... and you know why? cause their socialistic governments has made them SO dependent on the state, by taking away their freedoms little by little (in a false promise to a "better" life), to the extent they're little more than wards of the state. Not much different than The BORG. (but then, many of the Borg probably like it that way?)

As far as Michael Moore is concerned, he is a hypocrite, charleton, and propagandist troll, pure and simple. The Democrats were only hurting themselves by aligning with him. He
Did you see Moore on C-SPAN last week? He made a speech outdoors to a college audience. He cut off C-SPAN's cameras after 15 minutes after he realized they were there filming him... what a phony. That kinda fraud goes beyond propaganda. Even Reifenstall wasn't that heavy handed with Hitler. If you wanna be anti-Bush... fine, go to it, but Moore doesn't know what documantary means and even distorts the term "propaganda". Go to Slate.com and search for Christopher Hitchen's (a lefty) powerful slam of the movie.

The old union vote, which is dwindling along with the loss of union power is the same working class group who don't want nothin' to do with supporting issues like gay marriage.
I've belonged to unions. They are, without any doubt, the most corrupt organizations there are. They might have once been of some good, but today they are nothing but a tax on workers that goes to the elite union bosses pockets, to wastfull extravagant spending, and political coffers (against the will of it's members).

Oh, wasn't this thread about voting...?
I waited about an hour, a little longer than most presidential elections, but fairly typical. The day after the election I read lots of Blogs and stories like this one. (http://www.blackfive.net/main/2004/11/blackfives_vote.html) Here's a sample from the short post there:
2. The two books containing voter registration and voter signatures were considerably smaller than before. In the past, the voter books were about five inches thick, and now they were about 1/4 of their usual size..
Seems like Chicago (& PA & OH) are falling back on the old dirty tricks they used for decades. I'm glad this wasn't me, as I might have landed myself in jail.... LOL.

Slosh

11-05-2004, 05:58 AM

Sorry, but Republicans's are NOT anti-gay. And the overwhelming referendum in many states is NOT about gay rights... it's a backlash aimed at activist judges, who with dictatorial zeal thwart the will of the legislative process and the people. Quite simply, the people are fed up with such judges NOT obeying the law, as they are required to do.
Bullsh<a>it. Dubya wants to appoint justices that believe Christian values and strict constitutional interpretation are one in the same. Quite often constitutional interpretation does thwart the will of the legislative process and of the people. So be it.

So what's wrong with Bush's solution of giving "gay unions" all the civil rights and privileges of "marriage" without co-opting religion with the boot of government?
Sounds fine to me. Lawabiding, tax paying citizens get equal rights and religions retain the right to discriminate. Don't see it happening in the next four years, though.

Election's over. Back to the music . . . .

-Jar-

11-05-2004, 08:19 AM

<i>Gee, that's awfully negative Jar. It's true we're all born unequal, but at least in this country you have the ability to achieve according to your work (effort) from the freedom we have. The only alternative to the liberty we have here is a more socialistic government, and that's PROVEN to lead to misery. You REALLY think, say, Cuba would be cool? Socialism= shortages, blackmarkets, slavery (forced to work) for the state, imprisonment and secret police, faceless bureaucrats, and often outright bloodbaths. No thanks. Capitalism, for all it's flaws, is so much better than the alternatives... it's not even worth debating.
</i>

I agree that it's the best system we have and of course, I'm thankful that I live here in the great US of A. Don't get me wrong.

But, when I play it out in my head, so to speak, I see the poor growing in numbers, the super-rich consolidating their wealth and power, the government and the coporations merging into one.

I can't see how this can work itself out so everyone is happy. Yes, Capitalism may be the best economic system we have, but it's far from perfect.

-jar

nobody

11-05-2004, 08:35 AM

I've belonged to unions. They are, without any doubt, the most corrupt organizations there are. They might have once been of some good, but today they are nothing but a tax on workers that goes to the elite union bosses pockets, to wastfull extravagant spending, and political coffers (against the will of it's members).

I've worked both union and non-union jobs, and most people I know and my family have been union workers for the most part with some exceptions. Working in a union shop pretty well assures you higher pay and better treatment than those doing the same job non-union. If you don't think that's true, you're just not paying attention.

You may not think getting workers more money and better working conditions is no longer valuable, but I and many others will disagree with you 'til the death.

The real problem is people willing to take those non-union jobs and not respecting picket lines. The only real power a union has is the power to strike, and when you can hire scabs cheaply and everyone crosses a picket line with no problem that power is gone. That loss of power, much more than corruption has spelled the weakening of unions.

Are many unions coprrupt? Sure, most large organizations have some level of corruption to, including churches, businesses, governments, whatever. That's not reason enough to wish them to all just disappear.

kexodusc

11-05-2004, 08:47 AM

I don't mean to interrupt in your excellent discussion, Slosh, but I think you're over-generalizing the differences between capitalist and socialist societies. You're really comparing the western society to Soviet communist socialist countries...Yeah, THEY sucked.

Some time during the cold war, we tried too hard to make the distinction black and white so that we'd all support one another against the commies...Communism bad, Capitalism good...nobody questioned it...

But lots of countries with higher standards of living than ours, higher average wealth, have alot of social programs, but remain capitalist...a Social Democracy they call it. Capitalsim with perks.

There's no reason why we can't have our cake and eat it too and tailor the benefits of both systems to our liking ...if we're not at least trying for this, we're not trying hard enough. Don't engineer a system that facilitates giving free rides, but create a system that affords more of the lower classes to succeed. We're only as strong as our weakest link.

The same problems that killed socialism are killing capitalism at home...greedy, power-hungry elitists. The problem with our capitalist society, is that it ISN'T capitalist enough....do you really believe there's fair competition in the oil industry, insurance industry, health science industry (pharmaceuticals), etc...too many rich lobbyists interfere with capitalism. Not many people have the money to fight the legal battles required to set this straight, and no government wants to open that can of worms (the Democrats would have you believe they would, but their record puts them behind the Republicans in this regard).

JDaniel

11-05-2004, 08:54 AM

But lots of countries with higher standards of living than ours, higher average wealth, have alot of social programs, but remain capitalist...a Social Democracy they call it. Capitalsim with perks.

What countries might those be?

JD

kexodusc

11-05-2004, 09:10 AM

JDaniel

11-05-2004, 10:10 AM

Hmmm, Australia, Britain, Sweden, the Swiss...Canada...to name a few...
Not that they're all perfect either, but their systems do have certain admirable qualities.
Don't get me wrong, they don't have the Bill Gates wealthy people, but 99.99% of America doesn't have that either... but the AVERAGE wealth and poverty levels are better off...

There's no reason why an economy the size of ours couldn't allow for us to provide an environment way better than all of these.
Well, I looked up some financial facts. I'm an economist by trade, so I find this stuff interesting. I think this perception of other countries having "higher average wealth" is more perception than truth. But I could be wrong.

According to the World Bank, per capita income rankings for 2003 were:
1. Bermuda
2. Luxemborg
3. Norway
4. Switzerland
5. US
11. Sweden (23% less than US)
12. United Kingdom (25% less than US)
24. Canada (36% less than US)
27. Australia (42% less than US)

On the same page of the report, they also rank Purchasing Power Parity (which may be a better measure of wealth than income):

1. Luxemborg
2. Bermuda
3. US
4. Norway
7. Switzerland (15% less than US)
11. Canada (21% less than US)
20. Australia (25% less than US)
21 United Kingdom (26% less than US)
26. Sweden (29% less than US)

source: http://www.worldbank.org/data/databytopic/GNIPC.pdf

Not trying to dispute your arguments, but measurements such as per capita income and purchasing power are, I think, important. They may not translate into your "higher standard of living", but I'd be curious as to what you think those are.

JD

kexodusc

11-05-2004, 10:39 AM

If you're an economist JD, then you know these figures don't mean anything to the individual person's situation.
...I'm a Financial Analyst by trade, I work in derivatives and foreign markets all the time too.
Gross National Income and Purchase Power parity are excellent measures of economic relativity, but don't take into consideration the cost of living, or individual wealth because not all countries rely on income (dollars) to provide for their existance.

Purchase Power Parity really only indicates the "fair value" of currency, recently Canada's dollar has beat the absolute crap out of ours costing me, a good chunk every month >:(
Only yesterday did it reach its "PPP value" of 0.83 USD. But that appreciation in currency doesn't mean much to the individual up here in Canada, with next to no inflation, to them, when the dollar was worth 0.63 USD, a can of coke still cost $1.00 Now that it's 0.83 USD, that doesn't change anything for them, they're buying power at home is the same because Canada is pretty much self sufficient (a huge net-exporter)...

Besides, look at how high Japan is ranked there...as you know,take out 3 or 4 mediocre quarters in the last 14 years, and early results from this year, and they'd be considered in a major depression.

While those figures are routinely useful to you, myself, and others, they don't at all address the quality/standard of life relative to each other...nor do they compensate for the fact that over 90% of the wealth in America and Canada is owned by the richest 5%...(someday I hope to be among them...)
The United Nations recently ranked Norway, Sweden, Australia, Canada and the Netherlands as the top 5 nations to live in this year, with the US finishing 8th...that to me speaks more to the quality and standard of life than the income of a non-sentient corporation, financial activity reported in currency of a country.

Trust me, the average American is NOT 36% wealthier than the average Canadian...I'd be extremely surprised if the real difference was more than a couple percentage points to one or the other, and probably wouldn't have left for Canada for higher paying employment.

Slosh

11-05-2004, 10:48 AM

I don't mean to interrupt in your excellent discussion, Slosh, but I think you're over-generalizing the differences between capitalist and socialist societies.

Me? I haven't touched that can of worms. But since you mention it :) . . . .

The truth is neither capitalism nor socialism can ever work as intended because of human nature. Capitalism, with all of its problems, is still by far the best system (except if I was king of the world :p ).

I know I must sound like a left-winger but I really only side with them on environmental and personal freedom issues, and keeping big business in check. Everyone is well aware of the problems with the big social programs and I don't much feel like getting into that now.

I actually see a lot of sense with most of the republican economic ideology. Problem is it's all lip service and the democrats have proven to be much more fiscally responsible (in recent history, at least).

And this goddamn war is totally pointless. Iraq will end up under another brutal regime once we finally pull out. Thousands upon thousands dead and for what?

JDaniel

11-05-2004, 10:54 AM

Points taken, and it would be fun (probably only to the two of us ;) ) to discuss this stuff more in-depth, but my original question was what you thought gives these other countries as you said "higher standards of living than ours, higher average wealth".

The United Nations recently ranked Norway, Sweden, Australia, Canada and the Netherlands as the top 5 nations to live in this year, with the US finishing 8th...
While I can't speak to all the countries on the list (namely Australia), I've been fortunate enough to travel abroad some. As the old cliche goes, "there's no place like home", that's how I personally feel. Lots of places I've visited have been great to vacation (Germany, Switzerland, Austria etc.), but none personally make me consider them a better place to live when I look at the whole package the US has to offer. I'm more interested in what you think makes them better than the US.

JD

kexodusc

11-05-2004, 11:11 AM

While I can't speak to all the countries on the list (namely Australia), I've been fortunate enough to travel abroad some. As the old cliche goes, "there's no place like home", that's how I personally feel. Lots of places I've visited have been great to vacation (Germany, Switzerland, Austria etc.), but none personally make me consider them a better place to live when I look at the whole package the US has to offer. I'm more interested in what you think makes them better than the US.

I don't think any of them are necessarily BETTER than the USA, don't remember saying that, and if I did, shame on me...but maybe some ARE equal or better in certain ways...I do believe that many of these, if we can agree they are equal or better at times, have more social values than the US does, while retaining a generally capitalist society. Thus having their cake and eating it too...in the US we're so divided, all or none, it's kind of outdated.

Of all the countries I've been to, Australia and Canada are the most like the US. (I hold dual citizenship in the US and Canada because of my parents, so they both are special to me) These two both have radically more progressive social systems, and there's still fantastic opportunity to become wealthy in these countries.

As for what I think might make them better to some people, cheap education and healthcare accessible to all, for starters...but I don't like some these systems that allow the wrong people to go to school on the taxpayer's dollar while not being held accountable...Nor do I like people abusing free healthcare...But many of these problems are easily fixable by implementing decent rules and enforcing them...

Personally I wouldn't live anywhere that didn't broadcast the NHL and NFL football (NFL Europe DOESN'T count).

There's definitely a home bias in our personal feelings. I think because we're so far away from Europe and Asia, we only see the sensational poverty on TV, the wars, conflicts, etc...and think it's all bad.
Switzerland is beautiful, so is Sweden...I didn't like Finland much...didn't like France much either, but it seemed like everyone there was rich.

I just maintain we could be better here at home, but anytime someone tries to do something, we start throwing out the word "socialist" or "communist" like they only mean bad things, when it doesn't have to be that way.