lost&outofcontrol Posted February 3, 2006 Report Share Posted February 3, 2006 We've veered off course haven't we... I believe Jack Layton is a good leader/ builder but they do need to groom someone to take the helm once he steps down as I don't think he can lead the NDP through the 20% barrier of support. I think his honesty comes off as being a bit too blunt for the average Canadian; unfortunate really. He's not a good "sound bite" kinda politician. People seem to prefer the car salesman type*. *By the way, I'm not necessarily saying Harper/Martin are car salesmen types. It's just a generalization of our overall past prime ministers/politicians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tml12 Posted February 3, 2006 Report Share Posted February 3, 2006 We've veered of course haven't we...I believe Jack Layton is a good leader/ builder but they do need to groom someone to take the helm once he steps down as I don't think he can lead the NDP through the 20% barrier of support. I think his honesty comes off as being a bit too blunt for the average Canadian; unfortunate really. He's not a good "sound bite" kinda politician. People seem to prefer the car salesman type*. *By the way, I'm not necessarily saying Harper/Martin are car salesmen types. It's just a generalization of our overall past prime ministers/politicians. Layton needs to reform some of his policies. He doesn't understand a lot of the economics behind things. He is a good man and I believe his sincerity...I just don't think I would hand him the reigns of Canada just yet... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spike22 Posted February 3, 2006 Report Share Posted February 3, 2006 I like the NDP, I also like the green and liberals and conservatives depending on the issue. Jack has done a good job for his party but he really should remove the cardborad from his shorts. He always seems so uptight. Perhaps if he kicked back in some jeans, took some sotol softener and belted one back before he goes before the media he might come across as being a average joe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollus Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 I'm not sure but I think both Ottawaman and Boru are going a little hard on TMl. I believe his original point is that there are alot of Canadians who wouldn't take up arms in defence of this country. On this he's dead-on as the annual Maclean's poll shows every year. I'm not sure if you can categorize those who would or would not defend this country by their political colour though. Except maybe the liberals, they're a bunch of pussies. The NDP has militant union heads, and the Tories got gun-totin' rednecks who are just asking for something to shoot at. I don't believe the Liberals have this kind of character. Thank you Sage...you are correct that that was my original point... Than you both missed my point. It's almost too easy to say it's typical. But did you translate Standing up for Canada as picking up a gun and fighting? I not talking about spilling blood. I'm talking about standing up for Canadian communities and Canadian citizens and not bowing to corporate interests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lost&outofcontrol Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 Layton needs to reform some of his policies. He doesn't understand a lot of the economics behind things. He is a good man and I believe his sincerity...I just don't think I would hand him the reigns of Canada just yet... Just to know, what economic policies of his do you think he dosen't understand or that he needs to reform. **edit The reason I'm asking is that I'd like to know what he would need to do to be considered as an alternative by more Canadians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tml12 Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 Layton needs to reform some of his policies. He doesn't understand a lot of the economics behind things. He is a good man and I believe his sincerity...I just don't think I would hand him the reigns of Canada just yet... Just to know, what economic policies of his do you think he dosen't understand or that he needs to reform. Fair question. Layton seems to believe "government solves all problems." He resembles a tax-and-spend liberal and I think inevitable he will cause a serious rise in the national debt. I'm no "Reagenomic." I don't believe government should be reduced to such a small level. A strong government is important. But there is a difference between a strong government, a nanny government, and an efficient government. I am not sure that Layton understands the difference between the three. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tml12 Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 I'm not sure but I think both Ottawaman and Boru are going a little hard on TMl. I believe his original point is that there are alot of Canadians who wouldn't take up arms in defence of this country. On this he's dead-on as the annual Maclean's poll shows every year. I'm not sure if you can categorize those who would or would not defend this country by their political colour though. Except maybe the liberals, they're a bunch of pussies. The NDP has militant union heads, and the Tories got gun-totin' rednecks who are just asking for something to shoot at. I don't believe the Liberals have this kind of character. Thank you Sage...you are correct that that was my original point... Than you both missed my point. It's almost too easy to say it's typical. But did you translate Standing up for Canada as picking up a gun and fighting? I not talking about spilling blood. I'm talking about standing up for Canadian communities and Canadian citizens and not bowing to corporate interests. Hollus, I have come to not mind debating you because I think you are generally fair and, although we are dead to each other , I enjoy having a discussion with you. My interpretation of "Standing Up For Canada" does include a stronger military. But it must also include standing up for ordinary Canadians, that is, Canadians like myself who make under $50,000 dollars a year. The political landscape, at least in economic terms, has shifted far to the right in the last few years. I am not sure if any leader (left or right) can resist the temptations and the financial gain that will inevitably result from a strong partnership with corporate interests. A strong business community is necessary for a country's strength. I am not sure what your ideal PM would have to do. How would you want him/her to respond to Canada's ordinary communities? I am interested in your take... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lost&outofcontrol Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 Fair question.Layton seems to believe "government solves all problems." He resembles a tax-and-spend liberal and I think inevitable he will cause a serious rise in the national debt. I'm no "Reagenomic." I don't believe government should be reduced to such a small level. A strong government is important. But there is a difference between a strong government, a nanny government, and an efficient government. I am not sure that Layton understands the difference between the three. Just so you know, I edited my last post to clarify my question's intent. I do believe he knows the difference between the three. What you perceive as a nanny government; I perceive as a government that truly believes in equality by helping people in need. It's a matter of opinions where nobody can be proven right or wrong. It's either you believe in liberty then equality or equality then liberty. It's the level of individualism you adhere to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tml12 Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 Fair question. Layton seems to believe "government solves all problems." He resembles a tax-and-spend liberal and I think inevitable he will cause a serious rise in the national debt. I'm no "Reagenomic." I don't believe government should be reduced to such a small level. A strong government is important. But there is a difference between a strong government, a nanny government, and an efficient government. I am not sure that Layton understands the difference between the three. Just so you know, I edited my last post to clarify my question's intent. I do believe he knows the difference between the three. What you perceive as a nanny government; I perceive as a government that truly believes in equality by helping people in need. It's a matter of opinions where nobody can be proven right or wrong. It's either you believe in liberty then equality or equality then liberty. It's the level of individualism you adhere to. Look, I don't dislike nanny government. I don't think a government that champions social programs, etc. is bad, I just don't think it is realistic. Our public healthcare system sucks...let's face that fact. We can argue for the longest time whether or not it is the fault of bureacracy and government funding, etc. The fact is that universiality is not a good tool...it is not something that can survive in modern democracy. In an ideal world, I would be a socialist. But human nature works differently. We are all looking to get ahead of our fellow citizen. We don't care about each other. I am not talking for you, lost&outofcontrol, or myself, tml12. I am talking about our nation. We want what is best for us and at the expense of others. I don't think Layton understands the concept of a strong military. And he supports drug laws that are way too leniant... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 Drug laws that are too leniant? Because criminalization is working so well for us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lost&outofcontrol Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 Look, I don't dislike nanny government. I don't think a government that champions social programs, etc. is bad, I just don't think it is realistic. Our public healthcare system sucks...let's face that fact. We can argue for the longest time whether or not it is the fault of bureacracy and government funding, etc. The fact is that universiality is not a good tool...it is not something that can survive in modern democracy. In an ideal world, I would be a socialist. But human nature works differently. We are all looking to get ahead of our fellow citizen. We don't care about each other. I am not talking for you, lost&outofcontrol, or myself, tml12. I am talking about our nation. We want what is best for us and at the expense of others. I don't think Layton understands the concept of a strong military. And he supports drug laws that are way too leniant... I mostly agree with you although I do believe our health care system isn't all that bad but the main problem with it is that it's a compromise between a private system like in the U.S. and a truly universal system like in Cuba and most European countries. If we fully commit to a universal health care system, I think it can work. In this day and age, we are led to believe that you should look out for yourself and let other people work it out. The level of individualism has increase dramatically in recent times to where we would rather have the market correct inequalities by itself over time and let less fortunate people suffer until then. It doesn't have the be the rat race we've made it out to be. As for a having a strong military, I'm one of those UN pussies and so I'm of the opinion that we do not need a bigger presence than what our UN obligations require us to have. Then we have the drug issue. I still to this day do not understand the people on the right who are trying to control what people do in their own home. Whether that's the use of drugs or just about anything else. And I pretty sure that's what Jack Layton and the NDP believes in too. Again, it's a matter of opinions... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hicksey Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 Fair question. Layton seems to believe "government solves all problems." He resembles a tax-and-spend liberal and I think inevitable he will cause a serious rise in the national debt. I'm no "Reagenomic." I don't believe government should be reduced to such a small level. A strong government is important. But there is a difference between a strong government, a nanny government, and an efficient government. I am not sure that Layton understands the difference between the three. Just so you know, I edited my last post to clarify my question's intent. I do believe he knows the difference between the three. What you perceive as a nanny government; I perceive as a government that truly believes in equality by helping people in need. It's a matter of opinions where nobody can be proven right or wrong. It's either you believe in liberty then equality or equality then liberty. It's the level of individualism you adhere to. Look, I don't dislike nanny government. I don't think a government that champions social programs, etc. is bad, I just don't think it is realistic. Our public healthcare system sucks...let's face that fact. We can argue for the longest time whether or not it is the fault of bureacracy and government funding, etc. The fact is that universiality is not a good tool...it is not something that can survive in modern democracy. In an ideal world, I would be a socialist. But human nature works differently. We are all looking to get ahead of our fellow citizen. We don't care about each other. I am not talking for you, lost&outofcontrol, or myself, tml12. I am talking about our nation. We want what is best for us and at the expense of others. I don't think Layton understands the concept of a strong military. And he supports drug laws that are way too leniant... TML12: I don't think that that narrow view is true. I don't think that in a growing economy that we get what we want at the expense of others. I don't see where one has to be at the expense of the other to happen. I think that 'zero-sum' economy outlook is overly pessimistic. I don't think that one person has to take form another to get what they want. I think that people get back what they put into things. We are only guaranteed equal opportunity, not equal outcome. To achieve the end that is being spoke of, capitalism has to end altogether. And I am telling you that the wealthy will remain wealthy. Their wealth will not be the wealth that is redistributed, it will be ours. I don't have a lot but I am proud of what I do work hard to earn and I don't care that people will see it as selfish, but if people come wanting to take much more than is taken now, it'll only be taken from my cold, dead hands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tml12 Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 Fair question. Layton seems to believe "government solves all problems." He resembles a tax-and-spend liberal and I think inevitable he will cause a serious rise in the national debt. I'm no "Reagenomic." I don't believe government should be reduced to such a small level. A strong government is important. But there is a difference between a strong government, a nanny government, and an efficient government. I am not sure that Layton understands the difference between the three. Just so you know, I edited my last post to clarify my question's intent. I do believe he knows the difference between the three. What you perceive as a nanny government; I perceive as a government that truly believes in equality by helping people in need. It's a matter of opinions where nobody can be proven right or wrong. It's either you believe in liberty then equality or equality then liberty. It's the level of individualism you adhere to. Look, I don't dislike nanny government. I don't think a government that champions social programs, etc. is bad, I just don't think it is realistic. Our public healthcare system sucks...let's face that fact. We can argue for the longest time whether or not it is the fault of bureacracy and government funding, etc. The fact is that universiality is not a good tool...it is not something that can survive in modern democracy. In an ideal world, I would be a socialist. But human nature works differently. We are all looking to get ahead of our fellow citizen. We don't care about each other. I am not talking for you, lost&outofcontrol, or myself, tml12. I am talking about our nation. We want what is best for us and at the expense of others. I don't think Layton understands the concept of a strong military. And he supports drug laws that are way too leniant... TML12: I don't think that that narrow view is true. I don't think that in a growing economy that we get what we want at the expense of others. I don't see where one has to be at the expense of the other to happen. I think that 'zero-sum' economy outlook is overly pessimistic. I don't think that one person has to take form another to get what they want. I think that people get back what they put into things. We are only guaranteed equal opportunity, not equal outcome. To achieve the end that is being spoke of, capitalism has to end altogether. And I am telling you that the wealthy will remain wealthy. Their wealth will not be the wealth that is redistributed, it will be ours. I don't have a lot but I am proud of what I do work hard to earn and I don't care that people will see it as selfish, but if people come wanting to take much more than is taken now, it'll only be taken from my cold, dead hands. Hicksey, I don't think that I have said anything different from what you have said. Granted, you say that we don't get what we want at the expense of others. That may or may not be true. I do agree that people shyould get what they put into things...that hard work should pay off...but I think most people agree that this is not always true. Sometimes you have to hinder the efforts of others...whether you want to or not...for your benefit. I don't like it Hicksey, but as I see the world today, everyone wants a dime and not everyone wants to put in the social capital to earn that dime. Charity begins at home and the minut we start telling ourselves otherwise...the minute we feel guilty about not giving that homeless guy 25 cents...that is the minute we become vulnerable. No stray cats...I will help out as many people as I can and I will work as hard as I can but at the end of the day my success will be based on doing whatever I have to do... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hicksey Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 Fair question. Layton seems to believe "government solves all problems." He resembles a tax-and-spend liberal and I think inevitable he will cause a serious rise in the national debt. I'm no "Reagenomic." I don't believe government should be reduced to such a small level. A strong government is important. But there is a difference between a strong government, a nanny government, and an efficient government. I am not sure that Layton understands the difference between the three. Just so you know, I edited my last post to clarify my question's intent. I do believe he knows the difference between the three. What you perceive as a nanny government; I perceive as a government that truly believes in equality by helping people in need. It's a matter of opinions where nobody can be proven right or wrong. It's either you believe in liberty then equality or equality then liberty. It's the level of individualism you adhere to. Look, I don't dislike nanny government. I don't think a government that champions social programs, etc. is bad, I just don't think it is realistic. Our public healthcare system sucks...let's face that fact. We can argue for the longest time whether or not it is the fault of bureacracy and government funding, etc. The fact is that universiality is not a good tool...it is not something that can survive in modern democracy. In an ideal world, I would be a socialist. But human nature works differently. We are all looking to get ahead of our fellow citizen. We don't care about each other. I am not talking for you, lost&outofcontrol, or myself, tml12. I am talking about our nation. We want what is best for us and at the expense of others. I don't think Layton understands the concept of a strong military. And he supports drug laws that are way too leniant... TML12: I don't think that that narrow view is true. I don't think that in a growing economy that we get what we want at the expense of others. I don't see where one has to be at the expense of the other to happen. I think that 'zero-sum' economy outlook is overly pessimistic. I don't think that one person has to take form another to get what they want. I think that people get back what they put into things. We are only guaranteed equal opportunity, not equal outcome. To achieve the end that is being spoke of, capitalism has to end altogether. And I am telling you that the wealthy will remain wealthy. Their wealth will not be the wealth that is redistributed, it will be ours. I don't have a lot but I am proud of what I do work hard to earn and I don't care that people will see it as selfish, but if people come wanting to take much more than is taken now, it'll only be taken from my cold, dead hands. Hicksey, I don't think that I have said anything different from what you have said. Granted, you say that we don't get what we want at the expense of others. That may or may not be true. I do agree that people shyould get what they put into things...that hard work should pay off...but I think most people agree that this is not always true. Sometimes you have to hinder the efforts of others...whether you want to or not...for your benefit. I don't like it Hicksey, but as I see the world today, everyone wants a dime and not everyone wants to put in the social capital to earn that dime. Charity begins at home and the minut we start telling ourselves otherwise...the minute we feel guilty about not giving that homeless guy 25 cents...that is the minute we become vulnerable. No stray cats...I will help out as many people as I can and I will work as hard as I can but at the end of the day my success will be based on doing whatever I have to do... Charity is about having a giving spirit. Charity cannot be forced or it is not truly charity. I give to charity whenever I can, but its my choice. And it should be that way. Considering all the social programs/safety nets we have in Canada, we put in our fair share already. If you're Canadian, you're homeless and hungry, you've got to trying to be. We've got so many social safety nets that anyone that wants help can get it. The level of compassion we have for others right now I think is good. But, at some point people have to stand up and take responsibility for themselves. The taxation levels required to go any farther than we are is punitive to those who take the initiative and achieve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uOttawaMan Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 I say we should all just have a glass of milk and oreo's, and watch hockey. (Because beer and chips cost too much..) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lost&outofcontrol Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 Charity is about having a giving spirit. Charity cannot be forced or it is not truly charity. I give to charity whenever I can, but its my choice. And it should be that way.Considering all the social programs/safety nets we have in Canada, we put in our fair share already. If you're Canadian, you're homeless and hungry, you've got to trying to be. We've got so many social safety nets that anyone that wants help can get it. The level of compassion we have for others right now I think is good. But, at some point people have to stand up and take responsibility for themselves. The taxation levels required to go any farther than we are is punitive to those who take the initiative and achieve. The problem is alot of people do fall through the cracks of our system. Most "full time" homeless people in Canada are mentally handicap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 IBut, at some point people have to stand up and take responsibility for themselves. The taxation levels required to go any farther than we are is punitive to those who take the initiative and achieve. But what about people who can't stand up--say, oh, people with broken backs who simply can't work or walk or whatever. You may sit in your suburban splendour and pretend they're doing just fine, but even with the great taxation sacrifices you're making, they're still barely getting by. I would agree the problem isn't the rate of taxation--I don't think taxes need to be raised to take better care of the most vulnerable; resources just need to be shifted. But talk of a "nanny" state implies that the people who need help are babies, which is horribly condescending. It almost makes me want to see you in that situation so you can better understand what it's like to need help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hicksey Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 IBut, at some point people have to stand up and take responsibility for themselves. The taxation levels required to go any farther than we are is punitive to those who take the initiative and achieve. But what about people who can't stand up--say, oh, people with broken backs who simply can't work or walk or whatever. You may sit in your suburban splendour and pretend they're doing just fine, but even with the great taxation sacrifices you're making, they're still barely getting by. I would agree the problem isn't the rate of taxation--I don't think taxes need to be raised to take better care of the most vulnerable; resources just need to be shifted. But talk of a "nanny" state implies that the people who need help are babies, which is horribly condescending. It almost makes me want to see you in that situation so you can better understand what it's like to need help. Don't make assumptions BM. Your assumption that I am in suburban splendor couldn't be further from the truth. I fight hard for everything I own. And that's not much. I don't drive an SUV, rather a 13 year old minivan with 410,000 kilometers on it. I don't own a home or even live in a great neighborhood and the only extra I have is this computer which I built myself part by part because to put out the money it takes to buy one all at the same time is just too much. But you know what? I'm nobody special. I make it work. It doesn't require a bachelor of sciences in rocket propulsion to do. As Canadians, I believe that it is our duty to tow our fair share, or at least whatever we can of it. If that means working at 7-11 just to lessen your burden on the rest of us--if you're able--it is your duty as a Canadian. I understand that there are those of us that cannot. But I don't think that these people should do much more than get by. I refuse to pay others and have them be better off than someone that works. Those who do work should get some sort of reward for their efforts. And I have been there. I have been on welfare 3 times in my life so far. And I used it as it should be used--as a crutch. I was off the system within three months all three times I was on. Instead there are many that think welfare is an acceptable vocation, which IMO is wrong. People that truly cannot work should be on disability anyway. And I know a couple of people that are on disability and while they aren't by any means rich, they're not eating dog food either. They get by. And for someone that isn't working, that's all they should get. I keep my head above water. It is possible. I see jobs out there all the time. The real problem with people these days is that a lot of them think that they're entitled not just to equal opportunity, but also equal outcome and expect to start near the top of the job ladder making $50,000 a year or more. There is such a thing as a job ladder and I've been fighting my way up it for 15 years now. You take the first job until you can find a better one and that one until you can upgrade on it. And so on. It takes hard work. But anyone that wants to make it work can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 Well, I have the benefit of suburban splendour and an SUV and I pay over $40,000 in taxes, and I don't think that just because someone is disabled, they should have to live in sh*t with no hope of ever getting out of it. Maybe it's a guilt thing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BHS Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 Yeah, I know. I'm jumping into this thread way too late to be relevant. Oh well. Black Dog: of course, only a small proportion of "conservatives" actually belong to the class that benefits most from conservative economic policies. So their identification with that class is purely aspirational. In that sense, Conservative supporters are like sports fans: heavily invested in the success of "their" team, but only marginal beneficiaries of that success. Couldn't let this one slip by. I've seen variations of this sentiment expressed around the web (or at least those portions I'm familiar with). Here's my reply: Sure, I probably won't ever fully realize the maximum benefit that conservative economic policies might bring.* But I still aspire to be wealthy (or at least comfortable, which by global standards means wealthy). To take the most benefit from socialist economic policies I would have to completely reverse my aspirations, and be as helpless and pathetic a person as possible. So, wealth and comfort, or decrepitude. Seems like an easy choice, when picking your aspirations. *Barring, of course, the effect an economic policy geared toward wealth creation has on the overall economy (including my part of it) versus the effect of an economic policy geared toward making as many citizens as possible dependant upon the state's largesse to one degree or another. (Hint: I think the former is more positive than the latter, from the perspective of any taxpaying citizen, myself included. And since a wealth-generating economy is inherently more capable of generating tax revenue than one geared toward government dependence, it helps the welfare cases in the long run more as well.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BHS Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 I don't think Jack will be hitting the road anytime soon.He has increased the NDP visibility immeasureably, across Canada for a long time now. He added 10 seats. He actually got the Liberals to implement some NDP measures. On the other hand, he only increased popular vote by 2% despite the golden opportunity presented by the Liberal catastrophe of the last 2 years. In ba;lance, they would be crazy to replace him. He's the best leader they've had for a long time. I agree. Much as I dislike his politics, I thought Layton ran the best campaign of all of the leaders and I was surprised that the NDP didn't do better at the Liberals' expense. The Libs are a spent force, and they know it. Look at how all of the potential heavy hitter candidates to replace PMPM have said "no thanks". Maybe Graham will end up keeping the job after all, unless he bales too. I wonder what Michael Ignatieff is thinking right now. My earlier prediction was that the Conservatives would win a minority, face continual harrassment and obstructionism from the Opposition, and go down in defeat after 2 years or so, to be replaced by another Liberal majority. Now it looks as though the Liberals aren't up for the job. The infighting that brought Martin to power was a prelude (perhaps) for a period of the Liberals being lost in the woods. The Liberals actually did better in the election than many pundits (both left and right) predicted, and it seems ironic that they now look so weak. Here's my updated prediction: If the Liberals can't get unified under a strong new leader with the traditional media back onside within the next 6 months, they will continue to lose seats to both the Conservatives and the NDP in the next election, resulting in a likely Conservative majority. They absolutely have to begin attacking Harper as soon as possible if there's to be any hope for them. (Aside: Harper's likely defense against this strategy is his election strategy reprised: to play it cool, stay away from anything the least bit controversial, and give the fledgling Liberal caucus enough hyperbolic rope to hang themselves.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hicksey Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 Well, I have the benefit of suburban splendour and an SUV and I pay over $40,000 in taxes, and I don't think that just because someone is disabled, they should have to live in sh*t with no hope of ever getting out of it. Maybe it's a guilt thing... I really don't understand why we have to feel guilty about achieving and being rewarded for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 I really don't understand why we have to feel guilty about achieving and being rewarded for it. I don't feel guilty for having tons of crap and a big house to put it in; I feel guilty for others, through no fault of their own, who don't have a chance for anything other than a bleak day-to-day struggle in a gang-infested neighbourhood. I'm talking specifically about mentally and physically disabled people who don't have the chance to make a decent living for themselves--not 22-year-old guys who don't want to work at Burger King because it's beneath them. That's why I don't mind paying the taxes I do, so long as they're directed efficiently enough to take care of those who really need it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BHS Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 I have to agree with Hollus on this one. Just because I'm a liberal doesn't mean I wouldn't enlist if we got invaded. It's easy to generalize that sort of thing during peace times (no, the "war on terror" doesn't count). If WW3 actually broke out, I think you'd see far more than 10% of the left enlisting. A war to defend our freedom should rise above political infighting and stereotypes. To do anything otherwise would be childish. This is interesting. If WW3 broke out in the Middle East, do you think that more than 10% leftists (globally) would say anything other than "It's the American Republican party's fault. Let them fix it."? If, on the other hand, WW3 were to start in Europe again, what do you think would trigger it this time? The Big Powers of Europe are more unified than ever under the EU, but I suppose that could change. A more likely scenario is the "clash of civilizations" between European muslims and non-muslims, which would be viscious and bloody from the very outset as both sides are currently intermingled. Personally, I doubt that 10% of any demographic would want to get involved with that one, if they could avoid it. I sure as hell know that I'd be in favour of letting the Europeans sort it out for themselves. I have a feeling that the issue would spread globally anyway, so it probably won't be an option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hicksey Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 I really don't understand why we have to feel guilty about achieving and being rewarded for it. I don't feel guilty for having tons of crap and a big house to put it in; I feel guilty for others, through no fault of their own, who don't have a chance for anything other than a bleak day-to-day struggle in a gang-infested neighbourhood. I'm talking specifically about mentally and physically disabled people who don't have the chance to make a decent living for themselves--not 22-year-old guys who don't want to work at Burger King because it's beneath them. That's why I don't mind paying the taxes I do, so long as they're directed efficiently enough to take care of those who really need it. I guess my heart doesn't bleed as easily as others do. I don't have a college education. I'm not a skilled tradesman. I don't have any special skills that anyone else can't learn. I don't live in a gang infested ghetto. Mind you I don't have a lot of splendor in my life. My kids don't wear popular name brand clothing and shoes. I may have to work hard to achieve this, but I don't think that its more than the average joe can handle. As for the disabled and those unable to work. While I think supporting them is a great show of compassion by the rest of society, I don't think we owe them a house in the suburbs with a picket fence, 2.5 kids, a dog and a car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.