Rank the Republican contenders by order of craziness.

[blueblood]

Except that we aren't to the point that you imagine yet. We won't get there if we manage things properly. The US and Europe need to fix themselves, but places like Canada, Norway, and Australia prove that it can be done. The thought of letting other human beings die just because they don't contribute as much anymore, and now they need help, well, there's a reason that economics doesn't drive everything in society. Such a society would be cruel beyond belief. Welcome to England during the industrial revolution.

And if we keep how we are going, we will be there. Have you looked at the US debt to GDP ratio?? Have you looked at demographics and how much medical care currently costs?? Then there is Ontario and Quebec with their albatross debts. All people eventually die, just because gov't funding is cut off doesn't mean its a death sentence. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. THe USSR thought they could be compassionate and take care of everybody, and look where that got them, it was in fact crueler than any society on earth. England during the industrial revolution experienced massive growth and eventually through that growth it increased their standard of living. You have to remember that those brits were only peasants wallowing in their own filth living under a lord's good graces, a fate much worse than working in a factory.

Canada (except for Ontario and Quebec), Norway, and Australia can afford to take care of people (barely), but they aren't really bastions of innovation and progress, that's the cost it pays for genorous privileges to people who don't contribute.

What do you say about the starving kids in Africa, should the developed world pour down tax resources to ensure they have comparable living standards as we do? You can't save everybody, that's just cold reality. Everybody deserves to have millions of dollars and live a life of luxury, unfortunately that kind of wealth doesn't exist.

This is about being proactive and preventing a catastrophe down the line, and the Americans are starting to realize that.

Edited October 23, 2011 by blueblood

[Guest Derek L]

From most crazy to least

Bachmann- Nothing needs to be said

Santorum- Not much better than Bachmann in my books….I feel he should have a show on early Sunday morning asking for money

Paul-Reminds me of the cranky old guys you see at McDonalds drinking coffee at 6:30am on Sundays

Huntsman- Who?

Perry- Though religious, I don’t fault him for that, his performance in the debates with expectations that he’ll be President is crazy………The only way he’ll be President is if he follows Sam Houston’s lead

Cain- I’ll admit, I like him…But his lack of knowledge in foreign affairs will hurt him….I still doubt he’ll be President, but a good VP I think he would make

Romney- I don’t really like, but I feel he’ll make a competent President when he wins next year.

Gingrich- I feel he’s the smartest of the bunch, and I like him (reminds me of an uncle I had so maybe a little bias), but, for whatever reason(s), he doesn’t really gain any traction……Maybe too smart (and coming across elitist?) ….I’d like to see him as someone’s VP, but even that is dodgy at best, since other than his smarts, he doesn’t bring much of anything to the political table…….I think this will be his last Hoorah in politics and I’ll have to get my “Newt fix” by seeing him on Greta………

[Smallc]

Then there is Ontario and Quebec with their albatross debts.

Ontario isn't in all that bad of shape really, and Quebec's debt looks much higher than it is, because they own a corporation with high capital costs. The western provinces are in far better shape though, that's true.

I'm sorry, but I don't share your vision. Economics most certainly does not trump everything. We cannot sacrifice Canadian citizens simply in the name of an economy that may or may not be better because of it.

And children shouldn't be starving in Africa, but we have to be realistic. We have constructs called countries, and we might as well work within them.

Edited October 23, 2011 by Smallc

[bush_cheney2004]

If we have constructs called countries and the Africans can keep on dying, it's not much of a leap to stop funding end-of-life care for seniors and other expensive outlays. I guess liberal compassion stops at the border!

[blueblood]

Ontario isn't in all that bad of shape really, and Quebec's debt looks much higher than it is, because they own a corporation with high capital costs. The western provinces are in far better shape though, that's true.

I'm sorry, but I don't share your vision. Economics most certainly does not trump everything. We cannot sacrifice Canadian citizens simply in the name of an economy that may or may not be better because of it.

And children shouldn't be starving in Africa, but we have to be realistic. We have constructs called countries, and we might as well work within them.

Paul Martin didn't seem to mind sacrificing Canadians when he knocked off 20% of government spending. There have been rumblings of healthcare reform in Canada to prepare for the coming storm, and it is coming.

[Smallc]

Paul Martin didn't seem to mind sacrificing Canadians when he knocked off 20% of government spending. There have been rumblings of healthcare reform in Canada to prepare for the coming storm, and it is coming.

It's coming...to a degree (and you will hear different theories), but I doubt you'll see the same level of cuts at any time....and cutting something by 20% isn't completely gutting it. Our social safety net still functioned, even if it didn't function as well. I doubt the kind of reform you're tinkling about will happen, as simply shifting the cost border from government isn't going to solve anything. There's only a finite amount of money after all.

[blueblood]

It's coming...to a degree (and you will hear different theories), but I doubt you'll see the same level of cuts at any time....and cutting something by 20% isn't completely gutting it. Our social safety net still functioned, even if it didn't function as well. I doubt the kind of reform you're tinkling about will happen, as simply shifting the cost border from government isn't going to solve anything. There's only a finite amount of money after all.

Ah excellent so we are in agreement there is a finite amount of money. Where should it go, being spent on consumption to improve things short term or investment to improve everything long term.

In Canada, I agree we won't have to do as much cutting as our friends to the South and in Europe. Have you looked slicing and dicing Ireland did? Wow!

[Smallc]

Ah excellent so we are in agreement there is a finite amount of money. Where should it go, being spent on consumption to improve things short term or investment to improve everything long term.

In Canada, I agree we won't have to do as much cutting as our friends to the South and in Europe. Have you looked slicing and dicing Ireland did? Wow!

And I agree that the US is going to need to cut deep...but not now, and not only in the so called entitlements.

When the current economic time is over, cut the budget until the debt to GDP ratio starts to go down (balancing isn't even important if you can o that). Do it over 3 - 4 years to lessen the pain, and then don't start new spending programs, while capping current program costs.

Hive off SS from the rest of the budget, and operate at least part of it like the CPP.

Don't kill healthcare....make it better. US healthcare is some of the least efficient in the world.

Cut the Department of Defence to $500B a year, and attach the increase in spending to economic growth, or inflation. Cut every department by similar amounts.

Some seem to think that entitlements can remain as they are. They're wrong. Some seem to think they can go away. They're wrong. Some seem to think that the defence budget can get bigger. They're wrong. Some seem to think that the defence budget can be cut to levels of say, 2% of GDP. They're also wrong. There is a balance to be found, but it sure as hell doesn't involve letting old people die without at least trying to feed them/save them/house them/etc. We make money in society to make our lives better. Some people will always need our help, but that doesn't mean we can let them starve....even if they happen to be POSs.

[Bob]

Seniors /boomers (50+) are the richest demographic in Canada and the USA. They have taken a hit recently, but still have sizable wealth and disposable income compared to the young. They are about to get a haircut.

Blueblood wants the government to "invest" in him with money that's been earned by the group he is now describing as leeches. It's unreal.

[bush_cheney2004]

Blueblood wants the government to "invest" in him with money that's been earned by the group he is now describing as leeches. It's unreal.

He's right though...what is disguised as the fight against the so called 1% is really about an inter-generational struggle for income, wealth redistribution, and a lot of debt that "young people" had no role in taking on.

[Bob]

He's right though...what is disguised as the fight against the so called 1% is really about an inter-generational struggle for income, wealth redistribution, and a lot of debt that "young people" had no role in taking on.

I wonder how much money could be saved by stopping social security payments to seniors that didn't really earn it. For example, those that were unemployed for extended periods of time in their working years. Although I know social security payments are somewhat contingent on historical earnings, we know it's not really all that equitable for higher-income earners. It's also somewhat of a gamble from the actuarial perspective.

Although the following comment is meaningless in the search for a resolution, I think it was a certainly a bad idea in the first place to implement a nationwide forced retirement plan.

[bush_cheney2004]

I wonder how much money could be saved by stopping social security payments to seniors that didn't really earn it. For example, those that were unemployed for extended periods of time in their working years.

The US Social Security program requires a minimum of 40 quarters (10 years) of tax contributions, but they need not be contiguous. Denying benefits for those who meet that requirement is politically impossible.

Although I know social security payments are somewhat contingent on historical earnings, we know it's not really all that equitable for higher-income earners. It's also somewhat of a gamble from the actuarial perspective.

Social security provides more benefit to lower income earners, but payroll tax deductions are made at income up to about $106,000. This is adjusted each year. Medicare taxes are not limited and apply to all income levels.

Although the following comment is meaningless in the search for a resolution, I think it was a certainly a bad idea in the first place to implement a nationwide forced retirement plan.

It was never intended as the sole source of retirement income, and the government made matters worse by raiding the fund to finance current operations. Still, Social Security can be fixed with modest changes, just as was done in the early 1980's. Medicare/Medicaid however, will still be a huge problem as boomers hit the program. These are the people who will want Viagara into their 90's and refuse to die!

Edited October 23, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[GostHacked]

He's right though...what is disguised as the fight against the so called 1% is really about an inter-generational struggle for income, wealth redistribution, and a lot of debt that "young people" had no role in taking on.

I'e noticed a trend with you as of late. The amount of mocking you are doing is less and less as they days goes on. It's a nice change.

[kimmy]

You do know that in both Canada and the USA any citizen has the right to run for public office.

Actually a number of states, including Texas, have constitutions that bar atheists from holding public office.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

blueblood, on 20 October 2011 - 06:57 PM, said: You do know that in both Canada and the USA any citizen has the right to run for public office.

Actually a number of states, including Texas, have constitutions that bar atheists from holding public office.

It cannot be enforced, as it was ruled unconstitutional in a unanimous Supreme Court decision in 1961 - Torcaso v. Watkins. Any citizen does have the right to run for public office, regardless of their religious beliefs - or lack thereof.

[Argus]

Except he's right, if you want to be rich bad enough you can become rich. That's the beauty of north america.

Gee. I guess a lot of people don't want to become rich then.

The funny thing about economic mobility is that Americans, in surveys, believe that their nation is unique in the world in rewarding effort and skill, that, in other words, economic mobility is greater there than anywhere else. In fact, it's lower there than anywhere else in the industrialized world except the UK, which still retains strong vestiges of classism.

[bush_cheney2004]

It cannot be enforced, as it was ruled unconstitutional in a unanimous Supreme Court decision in 1961 - Torcaso v. Watkins.

Nice work...now if only we could help those poor Catholics who can never be queen or king!

[Argus]

Except rich people spend more, hire people, save in banks, and invest all which boost the economy. Can the poor do that? They can pay their bill too. The poor's free ride is over.

Rich people invest in whatever will bring the most profit, and that includes overseas. They also buy expensive toys which are often manufactured overseas, as well. All of which is to say they might or might not be boosting the local economy.

However, more money in the hands of poorer people is more likely to be spent at home on services, thus boosting the economy.

[Argus]

The gov't spends 4x as much on the elderly as they do on young people and you don't see that as a problem? Thats as much a drain as anything on an economy and is one of the biggest drains. Its an unsustainable and unaffordable program. Is paying for big money for somebody because they are entitled to it worth hindering the economy? I say not.

It's hard not to laugh when reading that sort of indignant nonsense. Hey, here's something to ponder. The government spends more money on sick people than healthy people! Kill off the sick! The government spends more educating the educated than educating the illiterate! Close the schools!

Those elderly are the ones who (except for immigrants) were once young, and have been paying taxes for decades, in most respects a lot more in taxes than they ever received in services. As they got older and they got sicker, then naturally they make more use of health care services. Is this supposed to be a surprise or something?

[Guest American Woman]

Gee. I guess a lot of people don't want to become rich then.

It's not so much that they don't want to become rich as they don't want to do what's required to become rich the hard way. We'd all love to win the lottery, I'm sure, but we don't all want to start out working for peanuts doing grunt work, putting in 60+ hour weeks. In that regard, we don't all have the same priorities. Some of us value time and experiences more than we value money sitting in the bank with high stress and no time to really enjoy it.

I wouldn't change my life for a CEO's. I value my priorities. Too many people want what CEO's have without wanting to make sacrifices - without recognizing that one generally is not born into the position and must devote their lives to attaining it.

[Argus]

Because if we're going to be spending gov't money, it should be based on investment in future production, not consumption as it presently is.

So what do you want to do? Stick all the elderly on an ice flow and send it out to sea?

[Argus]

There really is no other choice...can't tax enough to solve the problem.

Of course you can. Americans pay far less taxes than other industrialized countries, and far less than they were paying a few decades ago.

Maybe you'd have to forgo a few of your toys, and build smaller houses.

Do you know the average size of the American home has doubled since 1970? What kind of a culture is eager to put their money into big houses and big cars while letting its elderly die in poverty and without medical care?

Oh right. I forgot. A Christian culture...

[Argus]

Yes, it's horrible, its unfortunate, but for the good of society its also necessary.

It's like that scene in master and commander when russell crowe has to cut the rope sending the one sailor to his death while saving his ship.

You are getting your economic theories from second rate Hollywood movies?

The US is an extremely wealthy country. It can easily afford to care for its ill and elderly. It just needs to make that more of a priority than indulging its fetish for overeating and living in McMansions.

[Argus]

It's not so much that they don't want to become rich as they don't want to do what's required to become rich the hard way. We'd all love to win the lottery, I'm sure, but we don't all want to start out working for peanuts doing grunt work, putting in 60+ hour weeks. In that regard, we don't all have the same priorities.

You honestly think that just working hard will make you rich? Really!?

There are tons of people working two jobs, exhausting themselves working long, arduous days, and getting nowhere. You need to have a lot more than a good work ethic to even escape poverty in the United States.

[bush_cheney2004]

Of course you can. Americans pay far less taxes than other industrialized countries, and far less than they were paying a few decades ago.

Maybe you'd have to forgo a few of your toys, and build smaller houses.

...or build far fewer houses...like right now. See what that has done...great idea.

Do you know the average size of the American home has doubled since 1970? What kind of a culture is eager to put their money into big houses and big cars while letting its elderly die in poverty and without medical care?

The same one that has concentrated the most wealth in the "elderly".

Oh right. I forgot. A Christian culture...

..all about getting to heaven.