MapleLeafAlliance

Do without? So it's ok for individuals to do without, but not government? So, you're not in debt? Either you're quite exceptional, or you're lying. All caught up on your credit cards? Student loan(s)? Paid off your mortgage? Paid off your vehicle? Appliances? Lines of credit? Give me a break.

You dismiss something good out of turn because it's "extremist"? I feel sorry for you. A "horrendous Capitalist nightmare"? Freedom is a great thing...why do you want to be limited?

Yeah, and? He gave tax breaks, but he didn't extend them far enough...everyone should get a tax break...permanently. He's doing the right thing with the public sector unions, but perhaps that's in spite of himself. Could be he's just another neo-con idiot...either way he's right to break the unions if he can.

By debt I mean the unfunded obligations as well...it all counts.

In a free market economy...meaning (as you don't seem to understand) free of government intervention...this problem would not exist. The government would have no say over the affairs of any business or private sector union. If you believe it is the goal of US legislators to break the back of private sector unions along with those in the public sector it doesn't matter. In the end a free market economy will address all of the imbalances currently in place...and all of those you say are in the works. There will be an eventual complete repudiation of socialistic spending practices and the idea of government trying to influence private sector unions will be a moot point.

Again...none of what you've just posted has anything to do with a free market economy. Of course Harper's neo-con party has sat on their hands...of course current private contracts have been breached...we don't live in a sink-or-swim free market economy and thus we're living with the consequences.

There is no "version" of freedom...you either have freedom...or you don't.

It's easy when you're in debt, and you realize part of the reason is because we live in a system that necessitates one be in debt to do just about anything. Part of the reason I'm in debt is because government subsidies have made the cost of living extraordinarily high, and all the while I'm taxed within an inch of my life. Would I be in debt were I living in a free market economy? No.

There are people living in Canada and the U.S. today that will give Dickens a run for his money. We're no better today than we ever were. There will always be people who have less than others...for various reasons...but a free market economy gives the most amount of people the greatest chance at living well. Look for the ones in our society who live in the most destitute of conditions and you can be sure the hand of government isn't too far away.

Canadian health care is not a good example of government successfully administering anything. Our health care system is lousy compared to what we would have in a free market economy. Rationed care, hospital bed shortages...governments faced with choices between cuts in education or cuts in health care...who wins there? Even our own politicians will venture south of the border for superior care. What is sustainable? Government spending that the private sector can afford without going into debt.

You can play dumb all you'd like. You know as well as I do Wisconsin, like many other states, is up to its eyeballs in debt. To say you don't believe it is disingenuous...the figures are out there.

Allowing civil servants to collectively bargain guarantees that labour will become more expensive with each passing contract negotiation. Collective bargaining is fine in the private sector so long as taxpayers are left out of it, but in the public sector they're not, and so even inept workers are paid far more than their labour is worth by many people who have no say...no means of looking into where or how their money is being spent. And who cares about annual recert votes or individual opting out when the state is unsustainably broke? The public sector unions must be broken...all of the other minutiae is just window dressing in the face of the larger issue at hand.

Prove it? Are you serious? What are you trying to say, that there is no debt crisis? That the US and many if not all of the States therein are hugely in debt? Given that there is in fact a debt crisis...where do you think this debt has come from? It didn't arrive out of thin air...it is the result of decades of poor management. Poor management means running a government that has been inefficient, and wasteful and has subsequently piled on debt. I don't have to prove that to you...it's as apparent as the nose on your face. Even folks who don't pay attention to the news on a regular basis know governments around the world are in trouble with debt. And yes, honouring contracts is important in the private sector...in the free market...agreed. Part of the government's responsibility in my eyes would be contract enforcement through the courts. But no, that does not mean I agree that civil servants should be allowed to unionize and collectively bargain. To me, that idea needs to be done away with if governments are serious about getting rid of debt for once and for all. The can has been kicked down the road long enough.

It may not be just about breaking the public sector unions...but since this is the topic of this thread I figured I'd weigh in. But sure, do tell...what else is this about?

Canuckistan.

I'm indifferent when one big government politician wins and another one loses...I've said it before...it's all just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

That's great...Clinton had a budgetary surplus...what difference did that make if the US was still massively in debt? It's all just twisting semantics to make Clinton appear somehow better at managing the economy...which is a farce. He was just as much a big-government advocate as every President going back many decades has been.

You're not thinking this through... In a free market where all companies are in a sink-or-swim environment, it would be detrimental to treat workers poorly because a competitor could enter the market place at any time and become more competitive by attracting all of the best workers with better pay, better benefits. In the interest of competition, and not going bankrupt, companies would be interested in attracting the best workers and thus creating arduous conditions for employees would not be good for their bottom line. Forget fantasies, you've been reading too much Dickens.

Well I certainly don't applaud that...and I recognize that the only reason insurance companies, BigPharma, and medical corporations can get away with charging more is because they live in a system of mitigated risk...knowing if they drive customers away the government will have their back. The presence of government in the economy skews the real value of everything, and so costs sky-rocket while our income is further and further reduced by onerous taxation.

In a free market if a doctor or lawyer were charging more than a competitor for inferior service they'd lose customers. The reason doctors and lawyers become less affordable is because either the government subsidizes or favours them in a way that skews their true market value, or it has grown to a size that requires people give far too much of what they earn to sustain and thus have less discretionary income to spend on medical and/or legal fees.

If we lived in a free market economy no one would want unions except for those who are asking for wages/benefits higher than what their skills/labour were actually worth.

Both, like Reagan, total demagogues...they all talked a good game when it came to free markets, but were just as Statist as anyone on the left...they were neo-cons...just as in favour of big government, only they wanted the money spent in other areas like military, and corporate handouts to their cronies. Again, I have no problem with private sector unions, I could care less what they do or don't do so long as they stay out of my wallet. And of course labour's been driven overseas...there governments have enough sense to recognize that laws like that of the minimum wage law are anti-competition...and do nothing but keep unemployment higher than it would otherwise be. Anyone running a business will look for ways to keep overhead low...that's just common sense...no one starts a business because they're feeling generous...they're in it to make money. I doubt you even understand what you just wrote here. What are you talking about "the lessening of the importance of organized labour"? In a free market workers don't need to organize because companies would be on their own with no government safety net to mitigate the risks incurred by poor business practices. Organized labour is only important now where governments and corporations have worked in collusion to screw over the little guy. In a free market that relationship is gone, putting the power back into the hands of consumers, and workers alike. The lower standard of living persists under a system of central planning because today our society runs via a large, inefficient bureaucracy that costs so much to operate that it forces people to give far too much of what they earn versus how much they have to pay for goods and services to companies already in bed with their friends in Ottawa. The "standard of living" is a measure of our relative wealth. When you remove government/corporate collusion you remove the barriers to lower costs that come in the form of subsidies, bailouts, and public sector collective bargaining. Once you get rid of all that, our standard of living rises as we get to keep all that we earn, and goods and services become much, much cheaper. Not to mention our non-centrally planned economy would have a non-diluted currency(ies) giving each of us more in the way of purchasing power. I'm in Alberta because, even though it's nowhere near free enough, it's still better than most other regions. I don't support the Wildrose Alliance because they're not willing to cut the size of our provincial government enough. They're not ready to embrace freedom.

No.

I'm fine with answering questions, but I am responding to a lot of posts here, and as I'm sure you do...I have a life outside this forum.

I am not a supporter of the Wildrose Alliance...and yes, I do live in Alberta.