Toro

Your thoughts on this? Comments? I find it frightening that this international unaccountable corrupt organization would have the authority to implement and collect a global tax. John Bolton, please stop this. For those who want the UN to become more irrelevant, this is good news.

What do you base your conclusions on? What is your knowledge of statistics?

The US is no different than Canada or any other country in the world. All countries use statistical sampling. Do you think StatsCan phones all 32 million people in Canada? Of course not. Also, it is much easier to get a job in America than Canada (excluding Alberta maybe).

Sorry. You don' get it. In Canada, there is constant pressure to spend more money - on healthcare, on education, etc. In America, there is constant pressure to lower taxes. What do the Liberals do to get more popular? Ally themsleves with the NDP and promise more spending. What do political parties do to get popular in the states? Decrease taxes. If you do not understand that, you do not understand the American political psyche. Stop. You are projecting what you see as a problem and what you see as the obvious solution. It is not a failure of the political process any more than the inability to private social security pension system is a failure of the political process. This is what people want. People don't want Canadian style healthcare. As shocking as this may sound to Canadians who have been "brainwashed" that Medicare is an essential part of being Canadian, Americans don't want to wait 4 months for an MRI or not have the option to get a second opinion, or wait months to get a hip replaced or die on a guerney waiting in hospital hallway to be treated. The fact that you think American healthcare must be dramatically changed does not mean Americans do. I am a Canadian. I have experienced Medicare. I live in the US. I am better off in America than in Canada with my healthcare. You may have a different opinion of what you'd want, that's fine. But its interesting that in our Canadian Club we have here that everyone - everyone - prefers the American system. You are also mis-informed about America's "socialistic" healthcare. Not only does it supply the best care in the world - not for the poor and that is a weakness - but if I can't get the coverage I want, simple, I change insurance providers. There is bureaucracy and too much waste, no doubt, but there are no equivalents of the Mayo Clinic of the MD Anderson Cancer Clinic in Canada. I never - never - have to wait for anything. Also, here's a secret they don't tell you in Canada as the culture drills it into your head about how awful America's private medical system is - almost every hospital has a fund that pays for operations for people who cannot afford it. For the people who are brought into emergency and are found they cannot pay, this fund will be used to pay for whatever operation they need. Is the American system perfect? No. The stories you hear about people losing their houses are true. Some people go bankrupt, and I have no problem with the government getting involved - and they do BTW. America has both a medicare program for the elderly and a medicaid program for the poor. The government pays a big chunk of these peoples medical bills. This is again a failure of leadership on both sides of the House Again, no its not. American culture is more individualistic. You can make whatever argument you want about how this being inefficient or whatever, but this isn't a failure of the politicians. It is a reflection of the American population.

Well done Shady.

No, because you talk down to people and call them idiots for voting differently than you. If you have an argument, make it, and then let people decide.

I made a comment earlier about how Canadians think they understand American politics but they really don't. Here's axioms about American politics that most Canadians do not understand. "Taxes are bad." and "I don't trust the government." Americans do not like their taxes raised. Americans love their taxes cut. Americans don't like expansive government (or at least they say they don't). Americans need a damn good reason to see their taxes go up to pay for increased government spending. What you might think are important issues aren't necessarily the ones the vast majority of voters think are important. The Left often doesn't understand this, and its why they have been losing ground. Healthcare may an issue, but not the way you think. I live in a very Democratic town, and I know no one - and I mean no one - who wants Canadian-style healthcare - even the Canadians who live here! Americans simply do not trust the government. The thinking is that if the government can't efficiently deliver the mail (which they do a pretty good job of), why do I want them meddling in the single most important thing to me (though ironically, government expenditure accounts for 45% of all healthcare spending)? Canadians do trust the government. Also, you might think the poor should be taken care of, but Americans generally believe that you are on your own (more so). You might disagree with it, but if you think a massive expansion of the government in healthcare and welfare is what people want, you do not understand American politics, full-stop. Sure, folksiness plays apart, but the simple fact is if the GOP can get all the conservative voters out, and win a majority of the independents, the Republicans will win every single time. That's why the only Democrats who've won the Presidency the last 40 years have been from the conservative South. You may think its a play on other factors, but the simple fact is that the GOP have steadily been increasing their seats in both the House and the Senate since 1994 - with a bump or two along the way - under both Bush AND Clinton.

Roughly half of all Americans go to church at least twice a month. In my Southern, Democratic city, I'd peg it at 75-80%.

I would argue Bush was elected to spend money wisely, not to cut taxes by borrowing money which will have to be paid off in future years. You would argue wrongly. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Then as I previously suggested, the people who voted for him are idiots. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> And, as I've argued, people like you just make it harder for the Democrats and easier for the Republicans.

I would argue Bush was elected to spend money wisely, not to cut taxes by borrowing money which will have to be paid off in future years. You would argue wrongly.

I am not a (social) conservative, but let's think about this for a minute. 2 of the last 3 Republican Presidents have been self-described conservatives - Reagan and Bush. Both were re-elected. Only one Democrat has won more than 50% of the vote in 40 years - Carter. Only one President in the last 40 years could be considered liberal - Carter. That one President lost re-election. The only Democrat to be re-elected President in the last 50 years was a centrist from the South - Clinton. The Democrats have not elected someone from outside the South since 1960. The GOP controls both Houses and has done so for longer than at any time since Reconstruction. The moderates holding office in the GOP are slowly being hunted down and replaced within the GOP by more conservative people (unfortunately). Conservatives hold most positions of power within the legislative branch in the Republican Party. Conservatives hold most positions of power within the operations of the Republican Party. The best shot for the GOP in 2008 can best be described as a moderate conservative - John McCain - and who will probably win if he can get through a very conservative GOP base in the primaries, especially if its against Hillary. And to top it all off, 40% of Americans consider themselves to be conservative versus 20% liberal. I would love to see the moderates in the GOP rise, as that is with whom I most closely identify in American politics. But that's not what's been happening the past decade plus. Wishful thinking doesn't make it true Argus.

Suppose you point it out to me. I only see where you point to the fact that upgrading the levees would have been a twenty year project. I understand that. I understand no one else undertook this. I didn't ask why Bush didn't. I asked why Bush slashed the funding which was already in place. You still haven't answered. I've answered it in the other thread. But just to spell it out for you AGAIN You said the answer is racism But you've answered your own question, and you apparently can't see it... Bush was elected to cut taxes. Money was diverted to the war in Iraq. Many programs were cut. He holds responsibility, which I have said a number of times. But it ain't because of racism or criminal negligence.

Look again.

Right. Thank you for continuing to make Montgomery's point. And I've answered your question. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/index.p...opic=3829&st=45 <{POST_SNAPBACK}> There is no answer in that link, so I will ask again. And don't whine about what Clinton might have done, or what Roosevelt might have done. Why did the White House slash funding to repair and upgrade the levees and dikes several years running? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Here's an answer for you. Did you watch 60 Minutes tonight? They interviewed the head of the Army Core of Engineers. They asked him what would it have taken to prevent the levees from spilling over in a category 4 or 5 hurricane. He said, $1 billion and 20 years ago. If only Bush had the foresight 20 years ago to know that he was one day going to be President when one of the worst hurricanes would hit the United States, he could have run for President in 1984 and added $1,000,000,000 to fix the problem. Do you see the irony?

Plus, transportation infrastructure is definite added value which government does pretty well. It doesn't matter so much if its cars that are subsidized since any form of transportation is going to be subsidized as long as the government is involved, public transportation or whatever.

Except that I supported Gore and Kerry. Oh, and BTW, yesterday I bought food and water and loaded food and water on a semi to New Orleans yesterday. I hope you've donated something.

Right. Thank you for continuing to make Montgomery's point. And I've answered your question. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/index.p...opic=3829&st=45

Let someone living in the South clue someone in from Ottawa (even though we're really stupid down here. D'oh!) You are right, the Army Corp is responsible for the levees. But not solely. As someone else explained it to me this morning...

It did. That's part of the reason why Bush was re-elected.

You know something mirror, I thought exactly that this morning. I was thinking about how I should put a bunch of stuff up in the attic, and popping down to Home Depot to get an axe. Never mind that I live 30 miles from the ocean and there never has been a storm surge here.

Yes, and I might go start one.

You crack me up Monty ABC/Washington Post poll this morning http://abcnews.go.com/US/HurricaneKatrina/...=1094262&page=1

Using US$, the cost of running a car Buy a new car, $25,000, depreciated over 10 years, recovery value $2,000 = $2,300 a year Insurance = $700 a year Fill up once a week @ $30 = $1500 a year Maintenance = $500 Total = $5,000 a year to run a car.

Well... kind of. You are a Republican's dream. There's nothing people who live in Fly-Over Country like better than have some intellectual-type look down at them, telling them they don't know what's best for them. Then you say Sorry. Come live here for a decade then talk to me. You may observe American politics, but by that bolded statement, you truly don't truly understand it. But don't take the wrong way. Most Canadians don't really understand American politics, though they may think they do. I didn't realize that until I moved here, and I am still learning the political reflexes of Americans. No it does not. And I stated that. But it doesn't absolve Clinton or any other politician who had the opportunity to raise the issue either. Well you, apparently. Or maybe I can give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're only blaming Republicans during Bush's term. So, according to you, Argus, there are two, and only two - count 'em, one, two - reasons why this could have happened. Since racists only vote Republican, and since the only other option is "Republican arrogance", it can only be Republicans at fault, right? Well, even according to you, that's not correct ...and the previous administration. So now we're getting somewhere. Now you've just stated that its more than just Republican racism and arrogance. But you also said this insightful quote BINGO! Thank you very much Argus. Correct-amundo! My point exactly. Long-term, as in years. Many years. Many years spanning many Congresses and different Presidents. That is my answer. You've said it yourself.

And just so you know where I stand. http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/ne...t_id=1001054151