Article can be read here
This guy is just unbelievable.
First: An editorial in the NYT IS NOT official. I would accept a press release from the White House to be official. Since Obama said Medicare/Social Security would go untouched in his address, I would even say officially, they won't be touching those programs. (This is not to say they won't, Obama lies a lot after all, but the official stance of the White House is what it is, don't infer more)
Second: The problem with America's health care is that it is way too expensive. As a Canadian I find it funny when I travel and I get medical insurance which applies to every country except the US. By definition Health Care is expensive, but when doctors have average salaries well above that of other countries - you're going to have a problem. Americans as a whole get paid more then they're worth for a lot of jobs (sports coaches, athletes, doctors, union workers). But hey, that's their culture and I'm not the one to judge...but the offshoot of this culture is increased costs for certain industries such as health care. As the next dominoe falls, any public effort will be too expensive and likely mediocre (medicare/medicaid). Same goes for SS.
Third: Shamus actually makes the case that the solution to the deficit is to tax the rich as high as 90% - what a moron.
Deficit and debt were not caused by lack of income from loss of taxation, it's from over spending. Yes, you are correct, military is one of those big expenditures, but medicare, medicaid and social security are much worse. Worse yet, THEY DON'T SCALE!!! They may have appeared to work over the last 30 years, but the ratio of workers to those collecting SS benefits was much greater then it will ever be again (same goes for medicare/medicaid). This means that the cost of SS will balloon, while the income (those paying into it) will tapper. Fundamentally this means it's doomed. The solution is not more taxation, it's sadly a decrease in benefits that shouldn't have been promised to begin with.
The issue with increased taxation is that it stifles innovation, creativity and drive. Without those 3, there will be no prosperity.
IMHO, it is a travesty that SS might be gutted, I hate to think of how many people are going to have the rug slipped out from under them. But truth be told, if the US gets into hyper inflation because they default on all their debt then those people will face the same fate. The US was supposed to be the land of opportunity. What does this mean? It means if you work hard, save hard you can make it rich. It doesn't mean you can work hard, spend hard, then continue to live on the backs of taxpayers.
SS should only ever exist as a form of forced retirement planning. And no, I don't mean that measly few bucks that come off the paycheck, but a colossal amount coming off the paycheck. Then the amount you put in you get back with interest when you retire...that is a system that would work.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Monday, February 8, 2010
RE: The US Economic Crisis: Jobs Continue to Vanish While the Media Applauds “Recovery”
You can view the article here
Man this drives me nuts.
I think the thing about unions that most upsets me, is when they negotiate a contract with a company that they must employ a certain percentage of unionized workers. This is discrimination. Last I checked unions don't fall under any affirmative action criteria. I could imagine how upset I would be if I started a job and they automatically signed me up in a union, I'd freak out. How dare they remove my right to negotiate my raises and terms of employment, as well as strip part of my wages that was actually taking away those 2 rights! If I kick ass at my job I want to be compensated for it, if I suck ass I should be penalized. Why work hard if you'll be rewarded the same as a dimwit who does nothing?
Seamous makes the claim that since the number of workers belonging to unions dropped by 771000, that this implies drop in benefits and wages overall.
You know what Seamous, that may very well be - but I would be willing to suspect that the businesses that pandered to unions (such as GM/Chrysler) had to lay off more people then their competition because their cost/worker was much too high. Those businesses couldn't weather a financial storm because they were bleeding by the wounds inflicted by the unions.
Unions have completely lost their way. They were once introduced to bring power back to the people, now they serve only to empower a select few and reward the lazy.
Man this drives me nuts.
I think the thing about unions that most upsets me, is when they negotiate a contract with a company that they must employ a certain percentage of unionized workers. This is discrimination. Last I checked unions don't fall under any affirmative action criteria. I could imagine how upset I would be if I started a job and they automatically signed me up in a union, I'd freak out. How dare they remove my right to negotiate my raises and terms of employment, as well as strip part of my wages that was actually taking away those 2 rights! If I kick ass at my job I want to be compensated for it, if I suck ass I should be penalized. Why work hard if you'll be rewarded the same as a dimwit who does nothing?
Seamous makes the claim that since the number of workers belonging to unions dropped by 771000, that this implies drop in benefits and wages overall.
You know what Seamous, that may very well be - but I would be willing to suspect that the businesses that pandered to unions (such as GM/Chrysler) had to lay off more people then their competition because their cost/worker was much too high. Those businesses couldn't weather a financial storm because they were bleeding by the wounds inflicted by the unions.
Unions have completely lost their way. They were once introduced to bring power back to the people, now they serve only to empower a select few and reward the lazy.
RE:Liberals Get a War President of Their Very Own
View Article Here
For GR this wasn't half bad, though I have to say I get more and more irritated at disgruntled leftists for waving their hands in anger at Obama's support of the war in Afghanistan. Read 'The Audacity Of Hope' - he specifically addresses his support for it, and condemns Iraq.
Personally I never liked the guy, during the primaries I thought he was full of hot air and relied only on eloquence. When I read his book I couldn't believe how overly verbose it was in it's good grammar, and how terrible it was for content....it was several hundreds pages of saying nothing. Though I remember saying to my wife: 'At least he clearly states his position on Afghanistan and would focus on that war rather then Iraq...that I agree with'.
Imagine my surprise when everyone jumped on his back for doing what he said.
I don't care if you dislike the guy, in fact I don't like him....but at least dislike him for the right reasons.
Further, quit whining about America's militarism...that problem doesn't lie with America, it lies with Humanity. No country is exempt from militarism. Ultimately, you live in a democracy of rich privileged people - and just like a rich privileged kid will do anything he can to stay that way, so America will continue to flex its muscles to protect its position.
For GR this wasn't half bad, though I have to say I get more and more irritated at disgruntled leftists for waving their hands in anger at Obama's support of the war in Afghanistan. Read 'The Audacity Of Hope' - he specifically addresses his support for it, and condemns Iraq.
Personally I never liked the guy, during the primaries I thought he was full of hot air and relied only on eloquence. When I read his book I couldn't believe how overly verbose it was in it's good grammar, and how terrible it was for content....it was several hundreds pages of saying nothing. Though I remember saying to my wife: 'At least he clearly states his position on Afghanistan and would focus on that war rather then Iraq...that I agree with'.
Imagine my surprise when everyone jumped on his back for doing what he said.
I don't care if you dislike the guy, in fact I don't like him....but at least dislike him for the right reasons.
Further, quit whining about America's militarism...that problem doesn't lie with America, it lies with Humanity. No country is exempt from militarism. Ultimately, you live in a democracy of rich privileged people - and just like a rich privileged kid will do anything he can to stay that way, so America will continue to flex its muscles to protect its position.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
RE: Will Obama’s Corporate Tax Breaks Create Jobs
Reference Article: http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17407
I found it very irritating when the author stated the following:
"Instead of cutting back on war spending or bank bailouts, or taxing the rich and corporations, Obama is freezing social spending, while refusing to spend money to create jobs."
This is insanely misleading and is actually a downright lie. Firstly the bank bailout was a one time act, one which he spent a lengthy time in his state of the union address saying he hated doing it - and is planning to even tax the banks to try to recoup the cost of the bailout. Secondly, I quote from his State of the union address: "Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected"[1]
Obama was quite clear that the bulk of US social spending will continue. A far cry from freezing social spending.
Next, the comment: "Exports can only be increased if U.S. workers make even lower wages, since U.S. products must compete on the world market with the slave wages of China and India"
This is just retarded. Have you seriously not considered quality? no...because you're a union member/labor activist and don't care about quality. The reason Toyota destroyed you guys in Detroit is because they make a good car, not because of slave wages. Competing on the international market is a place for commodities (cheapest wins) and quality (best quality wins). I would hope my government would encourage domestic quality. The US used to be the staple country for quality and now it's losing that status, he's just trying to bring it back.
You like to shove in so casually 'thus the importance of unions'. It's because of unions that Detroit has failed and gotten billions in bailouts (which you fortuitously fail to mention), they bring companies under by bullying employers, using legislation that was once created to try to protect the worker. I'm appaled at their behaviour and find it shameful
[1]State Of the Union Address
I found it very irritating when the author stated the following:
"Instead of cutting back on war spending or bank bailouts, or taxing the rich and corporations, Obama is freezing social spending, while refusing to spend money to create jobs."
This is insanely misleading and is actually a downright lie. Firstly the bank bailout was a one time act, one which he spent a lengthy time in his state of the union address saying he hated doing it - and is planning to even tax the banks to try to recoup the cost of the bailout. Secondly, I quote from his State of the union address: "Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected"[1]
Obama was quite clear that the bulk of US social spending will continue. A far cry from freezing social spending.
Next, the comment: "Exports can only be increased if U.S. workers make even lower wages, since U.S. products must compete on the world market with the slave wages of China and India"
This is just retarded. Have you seriously not considered quality? no...because you're a union member/labor activist and don't care about quality. The reason Toyota destroyed you guys in Detroit is because they make a good car, not because of slave wages. Competing on the international market is a place for commodities (cheapest wins) and quality (best quality wins). I would hope my government would encourage domestic quality. The US used to be the staple country for quality and now it's losing that status, he's just trying to bring it back.
You like to shove in so casually 'thus the importance of unions'. It's because of unions that Detroit has failed and gotten billions in bailouts (which you fortuitously fail to mention), they bring companies under by bullying employers, using legislation that was once created to try to protect the worker. I'm appaled at their behaviour and find it shameful
[1]State Of the Union Address
RE: Citizen's Arrest of War Criminals Tony Blair and George W. Bush
Reference Article: http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17350
I'll start with addressing Splitting The Sky. Carrying a letter from a lawyer outlining offences is no cause to arrest anyone, it is not a subpoena from a Grand Jury, it legally binds nothing and serves no purpose except list one person's interpretation of the law (also, it would increase your credibility at least a little if the letter were referenced...its mere mention is trivial in the reader's mind except to underscore the supposed author. I ought to also mention that a former US Attorney General is by no means considered an expert in International Law, ICC judges are)
What would happen if a citizen attempted to arrest Bush? Forgetting the fact that said citizen would have to get passed the RCMP and secret service, it would be terribly embarrassing for the country resulting in said person losing their jobs and shaming their family. Personally I would say that for his efforts STS is deserving of public flogging, as are all who think up such stupidity...but you can thank the local police for being kinder then I.
What would happen if any government officer (RCMP, local/provincial police, etc...) attempted to arrest Bush? The US would have to take this as an act of war. The last country which attempted an assassination of a former US president got bombed, heavily I might add, within 24 hours. The last country to have made a gesture of war to the US is still in ruins and chaos. If any Canadian police force were to commit such an act, we would either have Ottawa bombed (if supported by the government) or be forced to kneel before the US in shame for the next 20 years (if everyone in the chain of command got fired). In either case, it would be the last time someone like you was allowed to speak publicly again. In this case, we'd have to say that people like YOU caused decreased acceptance of free speech.
Moving forward.
If South Africa declared war on the US, would you yell foul and say they're doing something illegal? No, you'd likely snicker at how destitute their fate would become (and no doubt argue at how they have such good reason for their decision). The only reason you feel apt to antagonize the US is because:
A) it has become increasingly popular to do so, and
B) you think war is about being 'fair', when by definition it is not meant to be 'fair'. 'fair' in war is used by the weaklings who need excuses for their defeat, and weaklings on the winners side who can't stomach the reality that we can't just all get along. Unfortunately, according to your rules, every country is only allowed to wage war with stronger countries...to the chagrin of the US.
IMHO, you were likely small for your age and picked on all through elementary school. You hold an eternal grudge against the tall cool bully who stuffed your head in a toilet and are using your podium as a mean of attacking every person/entity that YOU view as a bully. Get over it.
What's the closest thing we have to international police? The United States military.
Why should the US get to play police? Doesn't matter, through the entirety of human history it is the role/luxury of the world super power to play world police.
Is that wrong? It would be morally presumptuous to say yes, you're arguing against the rights/wrongs inherent in evolution.
Does this give the US free reign to do anything it wants? Sort of, they can effectively be as evil as they want to be, so long as their actions don't cause the world to unite against them specifically causing another world war. IMO, they are much less evil then they could be, so we should consider ourselves lucky to have them as world super power.
Is the US military going to arrest Bush? They haven't yet - because HE HASN'T BEEN CONVICTED OF A CRIME.
In conclusion, I will address your following statement:
"Unlike the United States, Canada is a member of the International Criminal Court. If the government of Canada truly respected the jurisdiction and mission of this new and still untested court, it would have made sure that credibly accused war criminals George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Condoleezza Rice and other members of the Bush War Cabinet were arrested when they have touched down on Canadian soil during previous months. But given the present composition of the Canadian government, there is no chance that it will respect international criminal laws that some of its own members, including Prime Minister Stephen Harper, could and should be accused of violating."
Firstly: An international court has very little power since there is no international government, nor is there an international police. Just as local law becomes void when there is no police, so there is no real credence to international law.
Personally I am glad that I don't get arrested just because someone accused me, maybe I'm traditional but I'm a firm believer in innocence until proven guilty. You seem to have more of a grudge with the ICC. If you think there's a problem with the ICC, then rant about that - and more importantly try to do something about that issue. Quit trying to push your own hate agenda.
Unfortunately it is nonsense such as yours which are the cause of limitations on free speech. If one day we truly do live in an Orwellian society, it will be people who misused free speech such as yourself that freethinkers such as I will hold to blame.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)