Left Vs Right...

[willy]

"but most conservative governments advertise broad based tax relief to all industry. even the profitable ones..."

As a Conservative, I believe I can't tell the future. From quarter to quarter you can not predict the winners and losers. Knowing which industry is going to be profitable is a crap shoot. Economic forecasts are like the weather. They seem like good predictions but too many factors are at play to know what will really happen.

Broad based tax relief is based on that principle. Ahead of time you can't tell who will be successful.

A secondary argument is that capital does not sit in accounts but gets reinvested and leveraged to make more money. (i.e. Makes more jobs.) Most major industry takes large amounts of capital to get started. We need profits in Canada to encourage growth.

[cgarrett]

no willy,

you cannot predict the future... but a country does know what industries it is lacking in for self-sufficiency. and you must agree that self-sufficiency is a key ingredient to a strong economy. it creates trade surpluses etc. etc...

and yes, capital does not sit around long... but wealth created in canada should be forced to stay in canada for reinvestment. business people don't like this idea of forced reinvestment. it involves innovation. its just easier to find a cheap investment with larger returns in developing economies. but our tax system supports this idea and globalization/free trade look to destroy it. canadians cannot move capital outside the country without a significant tax hit currently. foreign investment are the only guys who get away scott free. they pay corporate tax then move the money out without penalty.

[willy]

Holly Cow. You are a communist. I thought socialist but to go to the logical conclusion of this argument it is ultimate state control. I see the book 1984 flashing through my mind.

Capitalism allows for a certain level of freedom. That is why I like it. What you are talking about is just scary.

No point in refuting your other arguments. We are starting from a different founation.

[cgarrett]

well willy,

most socialized capitalistic democracies have lots in common with say, communist china. national health care, publicly funded mass transit, education etc...

what does the united states have in common with communist china? lots!

a non functioning democracy is no better than a non functioning communist state. it can be argued that a democracy with two choices (both selected for you) is not much better than a democracy with one candidate (which is communism). the two party system sucks (but thats the way canada is going)

and a non functioning capitalism is no better than a state run system. where there is no regulation to promote competition and monopolies that have concentrated wealth in a capitalist society its not much different from the monopolies of state run economies (just think about the 'competition' in the oil industry in north america for example).

thats why i am concerned that in all 'news' media there is rarely any discussion of the 'quality' of our capitalism or democracies and how they can be improved. and in whos best interest is it to stifle such dialog? the common voter? no... the status quo.

[cgarrett]

oh and i'm glad you mentioned the book 1984!

remember the perpetual war?! the unseen foreign terror?

now think 'the cold war', 'the war on drugs', 'the war on terror'. now thats mind control!

as was pointed out recently, the number of americans killed by terrorism forever is less than the number of americans who die from work related accidents in one year! ha!

[August1991]

Bump.

[jdobbin]

Bump.

That is what we will have after this next election. Conservatives on one side and a party yet to be determined in the future on the left.

Edited September 10, 2008 by jdobbin

[Alta4ever]

Why does page two look like the same person talking to themselves?

[moderateamericain]

there have been a great deal of quaint explanations of the differences between the right wing and left wing, republicans and democrats, socialism and conservatism or whatever names one chooses. but unfortunately these explanations rarely point to the heart of the matter.

Its an interesting subject to start I will throw in a few definitions. Liberal and Conservative

we live in a nation with borders and we are citizens, at times unwillingly. we are governed by a democracy in which every person has an equal say, or so we choose to think. most people if given the opportunity have used democracy to decide that the wealth of a nation is the property of everyone who lives within its boundaries. that the wealth of a nation should be enjoyed by all. and why wouldn't they?

The philosophy that a Nations wealth is the property of its people to enjoy is a founding principle of marxism. In a democracy Wealth is held by its citizens for there private use which the government takes a portion of through taxes in order to found the business of running a government.

anyone who has ever worked for a living knows that it is impossible given any talent to amass a fortune being paid by the hour. true fortunes are only possible by the manipulation of resources whether they be natural resources or labor. the idea is to benefit from the work of others or the wealth of some commodity that is not tied to the hours that one works but to the efficiency of the system that manipulates that commodity.

Simply untrue. There are many millionaires that did not go to college and made there fortune from the ground up. You look at generating wealth as some sort of con. Rather than at the truth of the matter that its by someones own sweat that got them to the point where they could delegate others to a task thus freeing themselves to deal with loftier matters in the business. Wealth is the reward for the ability to produce

private ownership is also key because without it then one does not own the benefits of such a system. but private ownership is not a right even though those who "own" large portions of our nations wealth would have you believe that it is. it is a system supported by our democratic choices. it can be removed at any moment. the most blatant example of this is the annexing of wealth, property and lives in the time of war. yes, even ones life is the property of a nation in bad times.

Fair point, Part of being apart of a community or nation is protecting that which you value. In doing so sometimes its citizens are called upon to defend what is theirs lest a separate community take it. Private Ownership is a founding necessity of a democracy.

we need entrepreneurs. we need the movers and the shakers to make our economy move. but to what extent? the progressive tax system which is also a product of our democracy makes a statement regarding this. it says that after a certain income then portions of the wealth of an individual that was made manipulating the wealth of the nation must be returned back to its citizens. our present day economically powerful are very wealthy indeed! the average holdings of the top ten percent of the united states is ten million dollars while the bottom forty percent is fourteen hundred! the thirteen thousand richest families have the same economic holdings of the poorest twenty million people!

So we should punish the people of ability and reward those who either dont, cant, or unwilling to make the same effort? That is what is known as a looter mentality. On one hand you say we need these people on the other you say we should limit there gifts. Who says there wealth should go back to the citizens? But that's not the point I want to make, the point I want to make is that these entrepreneur's do return the wealth in the form of wages by Hiring the rest of us who have either not made it to the wealthy status or are unable or unwilling. The problem with what your saying is "you have the freedom to make money so long as you support the rest of us. And you can only make so much or you are guilty of the sin of being too good of a producer" That Idealism is absolutely disgusting to me, not that you are in particular, but there are many who share that line of thought. Ability is rewarded by wealth, By what right do we have to punish it?

unfortunately, it is simply human nature not to want to give back what you believe you have rightfully taken. given the chance, a person will amass great wealth and then feel that it is their right to remove that wealth from the country altogether! to move it to a tax sheltered environment! it is in a wealthy persons best interest to manipulate our democratic environment to their own ends and they are in the best position to do so. to donate to political parties and shape the ideals of those parties. to own newspapers and television stations and publishing houses that promote those same ideals.

Again a fair point, The extremely wealthy do use their businesses to promote there ideals, However I dislike your choice of words, You said "it is simply human nature not to want to give back what you believe you have rightfully taken." I disagree with taken. Unless the stole there wealth Earned is the correct word. A man who earns his wealth should not have an obligation to give it back. Because through the sweat of his work and that of his business he is giving back through equal trade. The wealthy shelter there wealth because we have in place a tax system that penalizes you for having ability. Which is sad and undemocratic

right wing politics is dominated by the ideals of the wealthy. the support for regressive taxation, the downsizing of government, the removal of regulation, the movement of wealth across international boundaries without penalty.

This is your opinion but I don't disagree with parts of it, specifically eliminating Government red tape and laws that prohibit or hinder productivity, the movement of wealth to other countries bit is slightly biased and its really a case by case basis. Besides what does right wing politics have to do with wealth? are you saying that wealthy people are only republican?

so, why would anyone who is not one of the wealthiest of a nation vote for conservatism or the right wing?

Because the reality is most Wealthy people are conservative by nature and since they amassed wealth people wish to follow in there example. Also, and this may be my opinion leaking through. I don't like the founding liberal ideology that I know less about how to spend my money then the government. I am one of the rare breed of people that take freedom seriously and that includes how i spend or don't spend my wealth

any talk of socialism is always met with accusations of communism by the right and their paid mouths! how is japan, germany, sweden, denmark like china? they have national health care in common. they have post-secondary and vocational education supported by the government. now, what does the united states have in common with china? the fact that the countries wealth is concentrated and controlled by a minute fraction of the population!

Yes and look at the debts incurred to have that, look at the discontent in Japan among the populace that forced its president to step down, Sweden has a monstrous debt. China is not a democracy by a long shot. Not to mention it has killed more of its own citizens then anyone save Soviet era Russia. I don't think comparing Communist China and Democratic USA is a fair comparison. The standard of living is WORLDS better here then in china. The problem is these countries did not generate the wealth to have these things, they borrowed it and like a house of cards one wrong pull and the whole thing will collapse.

the current situation in Haiti should be a warning. there is a point where wealth is held by such a small percentage of the population that even a democracy is only democratic in name. when those who have had no opportunity to share in this wealth rise up and take back a nation, often violently, then the ensuing havoc may give rise to non-democratic forms of government. forms of government just as susceptible to the greed of a few.

All that shows to me is looters looting other looters.

Look don't get me wrong No country has it perfect. The US has a massive debt herself and something hopefully the next president gets under control. But the only thing that concerns me is you seem to advocate a forceful reallocation of wealth. Anytime that has been done in history it has completely backfired and only leads to a more ruthless wealth class. Examples are Russia, China, Eastern Bloc countries.

Edited September 11, 2008 by moderateamericain

[cgarrett]

”Its an interesting subject to start I will throw in a few definitions. Liberal and Conservative”

“The philosophy that a Nations wealth is the property of its people to enjoy is a founding principle of marxism. In a democracy Wealth is held by its citizens for there private use which the government takes a portion of through taxes in order to found the business of running a government.”

as soon as I see these labels which are, currently, predominately informed by a select group of people (ie. liberal, conservative, marxist, red tape) then it worries me.

a ‘democracy’ has nothing to do with personal property rights. actually, we live in purely democratic socialist nations that use capitalism as a tool. a democracy is used to select our governing bodies, absolutely necessary entities given the requirements to uphold personal property rights and other rights as defined in a societies constitution. governments use taxation for governance which envelopes many practices whether those be protection, regulation, infrastructure building etc etc. please research these concepts.

I encourage anyone to stop informing themselves with sound bites and research the concepts of democracy, constitution, capitalism and governance. I assure you that you will find them wonderful concepts that on their own appear at odds with each other but used in a symbiotic way create wonderful things!