Romney Hates Big Bird

cybercoma · October 7, 2012

Even if I accept that, are you saying that privately owned media doesn't have a bias ?

"He who pays the piper calls the tune." That's why a strong public media is so important.

cybercoma · October 7, 2012

Sun news is biased.

Sun News isn't biased. It isn't even news.

jacee · October 7, 2012

If PBS supported conservatism you would be outraged no doubt and wish to cut its funding. It attempts to hide its left wing bias but that bias has become more apparent with the intruction of right wing alternatives in the media.

I've been giving some thought to this, and I'm wondering what people think ...

How would Sesame Street/Big Bird be different if PBS had a Republican bias instead of ... whatever bias people think it currently has?

CPCFTW · October 7, 2012

"He who pays the piper calls the tune." That's why a strong public media is so important.

Just ask China.

August1991 · October 8, 2012

They are related issues in terms of overall federal budgets and reducing the debt load.
For the price of 1 B2 stealth bomber, you can fund PBS for almost 3 years.

GostHacked, as Shakespeare once asked, this is the question: Should the US taxpayer pay for stealth bombers or big yellow birds.

Besides that national security is a legitimate mandate of the federal government, Big Bird is not.
I do, however, think the American federal government is far too active globally than they need to be and thus spends far too much on their military.

It's costly to carry a big stick but it often is cheaper in the long run.

----

Japan has no military, and it has a public debt-to-GDP ratio of over 200%. Sweden also has no military, and its public debt-to-GDP ratio is about 40%. But both have government spending above 40% of GDP - without a military.

Sweden, Japan (and Canada) are free-riders in this civilized world of 747s, the Internet and victory in the Cold War.

----

Like Sweden or Japan, the US can have a centralized, Obamacare, State health care system. Or it can be the biggest swinging dick in the 'hood. But it can't be both.

Edited October 8, 2012 by August1991

August1991 · October 8, 2012

Yep. That's the U.S. alright. Starting wars and not educating American citizens. "Killing people overseas" is our top priority. We are, indeed, one screwed up nation. Truly evil.
x infinity

AW, if you think that America is "truly evil", then imagine a world without America.

There's a deficit because of the recession. The budget should be set to match some kind of weighted average of where the economy usually is, with more spending in down years.

Surprisingly, I agree.

2) Education is a core responsibility of government.

Is it?

I like the idea of a strong PBS completely independent from Republican interference, if I may be permitted to show a bias here.

And imagine a Radio-Canada/CBC independent of a minister of Finance. (In Quebec in particular, this is impossible to imagine without thinking of secret, private conspiracies - as if the State were any more honest, transparent.)

August1991 · October 8, 2012

And yet it gets less for all that spending. Why? We know about the gross inefficiencies of a profit driven health care system, but not why their education system is so screwed up. We know one thing, though: simply cutting funding is not going to address the issues.

But what about the gross inefficiencies of a "State health care system"?

----

Argus, you seem to think that nuns and volunteers should follow a "calling" and operate a health care system. Whatever.

I have a bigger question for you: the US can have a centralized State health system (Obamacare) or it can have a sophisticated military system. But it can't have both.

Edited October 8, 2012 by August1991

August1991 · October 8, 2012

But we still have national health care, and it costs less than the American program and produces similar results.

In Canada, health care is a provincial jurisdiction, not federal. (And this is the key difference between Obamacare and Romney's policy in Massachusetts.)

Likewise our social benefits are, as a whole, more generous than in the United States. Just as one small example, Canada, like virtually every other advanced nation on Earth, allows mothers to take time off with pay to both recover from a birth and be with their child. In Canada, that works out to most of a year. Other nations have more generous programs, some less generous. The United States gives a big fat ZERO for maternity benefits and parental leave.

I'm not so certain of your claim.

US social security payments are far more generous than CPP/OAS and GAINs. In addition, US Medicare is generally better than our provincial health care for seniors. All things considered, if I were someone over 65, I would prefer to be an American than a Canadian.

So why is it that with all our generous benefits, and all our unionized teachers and all our national medical care and pensions, we are able to close the gap on our deficit, and will, within a few years, eliminate it without any really major sacrifices? Meanwhile, the US has to get rid of pensions and health care? How does that make sense to you?

The US federal government spends 20% on its military and we spend about 3%.

We Canadians, despite NATO and despite the UN, are free-riders in this civilized world.

----

But here's a broader thought: If the US didn't have a free market in health care, where would we find the innovation? Societies like Canada can afford to be foolish in health care because of the ingenuity of America.

Edited October 8, 2012 by August1991

August1991 · October 8, 2012

Again any independent, analysis has shown even if Romney closes all loopholes it will still blow a hole in the budget. I repeating the a lie Shady won't make it true no matter how many times you do it. Even if Romney xlcreates every job he promises to each job he creates would have to pay 500 000 to balance the budget so that isn't going to do it.

In effect, like Krugman, you inadvertently make Romney's point: US federal government spending is out of control.

Try 40 years.

10 years, or so. Government debt is not sustainable when the government budget deficit is consistently greater than GDP growth.

For the past 10 years or so, US federal government budget deficits have been greater than GDP growth.

A government cannot borrow more than it hopes to tax.

Edited October 8, 2012 by August1991

dre · October 8, 2012

All things considered, if I were someone over 65, I would prefer to be an American than a Canadian.

Luckily for you the door is a few thousand miles wide. Dont let it hit your ass on the way out

August1991 · October 8, 2012

Luckily for you the door is a few thousand miles wide. Dont let it hit your ass on the way out

To benefit from US Social Security and Medicare, one has to live/work in the US for many years before age 65. For people in Canada over 65, the system is different - and less generous.

For example, in the US, a 66 year old immigrant is not entitled to Medicare. In Canada, any 66 year old immigrant to Canada can wait in an emergency room, along with everyone else.

Imagine the consequences.

Edited October 8, 2012 by August1991

dre · October 8, 2012

10 years, or so. Government debt is not sustainable when the government budget deficit is consistently

Debt as percentage of GDP in the US started increasing in the late 70's after falling for several decades post WW2.. Once convertability was suspended it was pretty much a forgone conclusion and trade policy made it even worse.

http://mercuryreliance.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/us-debt-to-gdp-chart.jpg

Its not so much about the policies of any one government, its the cumulative exponential result of consuming more than you produce over the course of almost 40 years.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_n1qJVTVs-rk/SZousu3I54I/AAAAAAAAAcQ/Qwes9HTixSs/s400/trade+def+to+GDP.jpg

And its not an accident, its the result of a plan that was hatched to finance economic growth in the US with a constant cycle of borrowing, and inflation.

In terms of real goods and services the US actually owes less now than it did a couple of decades ago. For example... it would take less gold to settle the national debt now, than it would have in 1990. It would take less oil as well, and less bushels of wheat. The only measure by which debt has increased is US dollars and those are just arbitrary tokens of no real value. They can inflate the dollar to the point where the national debt could be repaid with a burger and fries.

dre · October 8, 2012

To benefit from US Social Security and Medicare, one has to live/work in the US for many years before age 65. For people in Canada over 65, the system is different - and less generous.

For example, in the US, a 66 year old immigrant is not entitled to Medicare. In Canada, any 66 year old immigrant to Canada can wait in an emergency room, along with everyone else.

Imagine the consequences.

Yeah... the consequences are that getting sick in the US is the number one cause of bankruptcy and care costs the nation about twice as much.

August1991 · October 8, 2012

Yeah... the consequences are that getting sick in the US is the number one cause of bankruptcy and care costs the nation about twice as much.

Can you provide a cite to your claim that "getting sick in the US is the number one cause of bankruptcy"?

As to "care costs", does that include waiting in line?

----

If someone has lived and worked in America for many years, they are generally alright. But if you are an elderly foreigner looking for health care, Canada is the place to go.

In general, for people who have lived/worked in America (people like Obama's grandmother), US social security and US Medicare are better than Canada's CPP/OAP/GAINs and our provincial health systems.

For older immigrants, the Canadian systems of health care (and pension) are arguably better.

Edited October 8, 2012 by August1991

Smallc · October 8, 2012

In general, for people who have lived/worked in America (people like Obama's grandmother), US social security and US Medicare are better than Canada's CPP/OAP/GAINs and our provincial health systems.

Based on?????

August1991 · October 8, 2012

Based on?????

Average CPP payment: $529.09 Link

Average Social Security payment: $1,230 Link

I won't talk about the waiting lines at hospitals.

Edited October 8, 2012 by August1991

Smallc · October 8, 2012

Average CPP payment: $529.09 Link

Average Social Security payment: $1,230 Link

That's what OAS and GIS are for.....My grandmother has no income other than OAS and GIS, and gets almost $1300 a month.

I won't talk about the waiting lines at hospitals.

Waiting lines in hospitals? Maybe in Quebec, but not here...

Edited October 8, 2012 by Smallc

msj · October 8, 2012

Average CPP payment: $529.09 Link

Average Social Security payment: $1,230 Link

Add average OAS payment of $514.74 and a GIS payment of $423.90 and a poor single senior (i.e. assuming CPP/OAS/GIS are the only sources of income) will total $1,467 per month.

Edited October 8, 2012 by msj

August1991 · October 8, 2012

That's what OAS and GIS are for.....My grandmother has no income other than OAS and GIS, and gets almost $1300 a month.

So, your Canadian impoverished grandmother receives the average US Social Security.

Waiting lines in hospitals? Maybe in Quebec, but not here...

So your grandmother received treatment as good as US Medicare.

WTF? The US is a benchmark for pensions and healthcare?

Add average OAS payment of $514.74 and a GIS payment of $423.90 and a poor single senior (i.e. assuming CPP/OAS/GIS are the only sources of income) will total $1,467 per month.

As usual, msj once again without intention makes my point.

Average US social security is better than CPP, better/equal to CPP/OAS/GAINS.

And we haven't even talked about the far more critical Medicare/provincial health systems.

-----

Immigrants to Canada, within 3 months, are covered by our provincial health systems. Immigrants to Canada, within 10 years, are entitled to OAS.

Guess what happens next.

Edited October 8, 2012 by August1991

dre · October 8, 2012

Can you provide a cite to your claim that "getting sick in the US is the number one cause of bankruptcy"?

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jun2009/db2009064_666715.htm

Medical problems caused 62% of all personal bankruptcies filed in the U.S. in 2007

msj · October 8, 2012

So, your Canadian impoverished grandmother receives the average US Social Security.

So your grandmother received treatment as good as US Medicare.

WTF? The US is a benchmark for pensions and healthcare?

As usual, msj once again without intention makes my point.

And you are conveniently other factors.

You are comparing a program (social security) which one pays into at a rate of 10.4% (and one day will probably be 12.4% - possibly as soon as 2013) on income up to $110,000.

CPP is paid at a rate of 9.9% on income up to around $50,000.

No surprise that SS would be greater than CPP since more is being paid into it.

The US will continue to run deficits for several more years regardless of Obama or Romney (and "getting" Big Bird will save nothing more than a rounding error - to bring this back on topic).

The US is going to find itself paying higher taxes and/or lower benefits in the future.

Edited October 8, 2012 by msj

August1991 · October 8, 2012

You are comparing a program (social security) which one pays into at a rate of 10.4% (and one day will probably be 12.4% - possibly as soon as 2013) on income up to $110,000.
CPP is paid at a rate of 9.9% on income up to around $50,000.

No surprise that SS would be greater than CPP since more is being paid into it.

So, you agree. The US cares more about its pensioners than Canada.

The US will continue to run deficits for several more years regardless of Obama or Romney (and "getting" Big Bird will save nothing more than a rounding error - to bring this back on topic).
The US is going to find itself paying higher taxes and/or lower benefits in the future.

OMG! You agree with Romney. You're a (Mormon) Republican!

(Puts hand on cheek, opens mouth in surprise.)

Wow!

Edited October 8, 2012 by August1991

dre · October 8, 2012

So, you agree. The US cares more about its pensioners than Canada.

Hah what twisted logic that is... and you apparently cant even see why.

msj · October 8, 2012

So, you agree. The US cares more about its pensioners than Canada.

No, I don't think that we can adequately address this issue in a thread that is drifting way too far from it's OP.

I doubt that I could adequately address it in its own thread. There are a lot of factors to try and bring the US and Canada closer to a reasonable apples and apples comparison.

OMG! You agree with Romney. You're a (Mormon) Republican!

(Puts hand on cheek, opens mouth in surprise.)

Wow!

This is not the first time I have raised concerns over the sustainability of the US SS.

When I kicked your and BC_2004's butt several years back over in the US Recession thread I also talked about this.

Edited October 8, 2012 by msj

cybercoma · October 8, 2012

Immigrants to Canada, within 3 months, are covered by our provincial health systems. Immigrants to Canada, within 10 years, are entitled to OAS.
Guess what happens next.

You're grossly misrepresenting the facts.

Most provinces don't provide health coverage to someone until they've been in the country for SIX months, not three.

Immigrants to Canada, within 10 years, are entitled to OAS only if they become Canadian citizens or are legal residents (landed immigrant) and even then OAS is pro-rated for the number of years you've been in the country. Those 10 years have to follow the person's 18th birthday. So someone that lives in Canada from 8 to 18, then leaves does not get OAS if they move back to Canada a year before they turn 65. Also those are only to receive the pension living in Canada. Those immigrants will receive and spend that money here in Canada. You can receive pension outside of Canada, but the minimum for that is living in the country for 20 years after your 18th birthday. No one receives benefits while incarcerated.

In order to qualify for full benefits, you must have lived in Canada for 40 years following your 18th birthday. So the actual amount of the benefit varies with 10 years in the country being the minimum benefit, while 40 years in the country is the full benefit. You failed to mention this when you claimed that someone living in the country for 10 years gets OAS.

Besides, why shouldn't someone that has lived here and paid taxes into our system for a decade receive OAS? We're not talking about someone that's just visiting. In order to be here any longer than 6 months, you must go through immigration and get a visa. You have to be a landed immigrant and here legally.

Moreover, you compared CPP with American social security, while failing to recognize that our social security is a package that includes not only CPP, but also OAS, GIS, Allowance, and Survivor's Allowance. What's the average for all of those benefits combined?