|
Do employers in Australia offer health care or does the government pick up the tab? That would go a long way toward paying a better wage. Employee provided health insurance can get expensive here.Surely you're not suggesting that nationalized health care is a good idea?
For the sake of my argument, I'm staying neutral on the topic of universal health care. My opinion is irrelevant to my point. Universal health care is reality in Australia, and it changed the paradigm businesses in the two countries operate under.
Health care is a large expense for businesses that offer it. Couple that with the higher wages (which would compare to similar workers in Australia in hourly wage) and the less forgiving corporate tax structure in the U.S., and you're looking at some serious damage to the bottom line, which goes towards things like opening new stores (and they're targeting underdeveloped urban properties now, so less killing off of mom and pop) which creates new jobs in usually economically needy areas.
Also, I'm not sure about Australia's pension plans, if they're Federal and union or if they're employer provided and matched, but they are employer provided and matched here much of the time, so that's a level of difference between the two nations if the division does exist.
I'm just pointing out that there are differences between Australia and the U.S. that make using domestic assumptions to define the other nations situation problematic.
Also, I'm not sure about Australia's pension plans, if they're Federal and union or if they're employer provided and matched, but they are employer provided and matched here much of the time, so that's a level of difference between the two nations if the division does exist.
Hahahahahaha....
My company matches 1% of the first $1,000/year (or something equally absurd), and zero after that. So their total cost on retirement for employees is $10/year per employee or less.
Government provides non elective health care - I can see how that would affect the bottom line... Then again the citizens and business pay taxes so we can have health care, the shared cost makes it viable.
We have both government pension and Superannuation - Super the government employer and employee all contribute.
Mandatory Super is newish about 20 years in effect I think. It takes a large spending burden off the government. It makes people save their own money, I know companies would prefer not to contribute but - it means you have a bunch of retirees that have enormous spending power to keep the economy ticking over.
Hahahahahaha....
My company matches 1% of the first $1,000/year (or something equally absurd), and zero after that. So their total cost on retirement for employees is $10/year per employee or less.
My employer has 401(k) matching @ 100% for the first 3% contributed, and at 50% for the next 3% contributed, for a total match of 4.5% of income with a contribution of 6.0% or better. Seems pretty generous to me.
Kirth, it sounds like your employer kinda sucks (or maybe that's just how it is in your industry). Either way, I can't imagine the program you have as even being worth the cost of administration...
Kirth, it sounds like your employer kinda sucks (or maybe that's just how it is in your industry). Either way, I can't imagine the program you have as even being worth the cost of administration...
It's maybe not quite as bad as I made it out to be, but it sure as hell doesn't hold a candle to yours. The value is that at least it provides a pre-tax place to start saving for retirement.
Let me play devil's advocate,
No problem Kirth, you do it excellently =P
and mention that I find it interesting that the strongest advocates of the "Everyone Can Do It Themselves!" people are the ones who didn't.
I know you probably didn't mean it that way, but *ouch*. Maybe I miscommunicated, but the whole thing is, that despite my poor early choices and several things in my personal life that preclude me from chasing money I do feel that I have 'done it myself.' It took some doing, but I did it and I'm still doing it to this day, despite my adventures in economic downturns.
Personally, I made it through school by a combination of work, scholarships, loans, taking the bus and walking everywhere I had to go, and getting incredibly lucky on the market with the money saved. I probably spent as many hours studying as most people did sleeping. I made all the "right" choices... and 20 years after successfully graduating, am still living in an apartment, to avoid debt (even house debt) as best as I can. To some extent, that's the system we're advocating -- that an intelligent, ambitious person who works hard and plays all the cards right can almost always stay just ahead of debt, if he's shrewd enough.
I am sorry if you find yourself not being compensated as you feel fit. I know that it happens, but there are also a lot of people who do quite well with the degree and a good company. I don't quite agree with the bolded statement above. I have seen many folks do well after college with ambition.
Business opportunities? Well, I don't know anyone important, and my family wasn't friends with anyone helpful, and I've never in my life had the capital to even think about starting a business. Being an entrepreneur was out. What would have helped? A different career, no doubt, but my aptitude is in science, not in law. What else? The right school, maybe, and the contacts that one could get there. But despite academic achievement through working my ass off in high school, and scoring high on the SAT, etc., the Ivies were always barred to me because I wasn't a legacy and because my family couldn't donate a new library wing. All of the opportunities that the Ivies represent were therefore also automatically denied me -- and my personal choices had nothing at all to do with that.
I just started working for a dude who ten years ago thanks to a pretty messy divorce was sleeping in a beat-up Toyota with nothing but a child-support payment that literally left him penniless for about two years. He managed to go from that point to just opening up his second coffeeshop location a month ago. No patronage, no Ivy League, no nest egg. He works very hard, harder than I would ever care to, but that's his style. I've known a lot of folks like him, worked for a lot of folks like him. It's still possible to succeed in what you love to do and make money at it if you work hard.
So sometimes instead of "chose well" or "chose poorly," I instead see (a) people with golden shoo-in opportunities who couldn't lose, on the one hand, and (b) most others who lacked those opportunities, on the other. In the latter group, some (like my friend HD) made poorer choices early on, and some (like me) made arguably better choices; but the net outcome is that the people with the nice opportunities are way ahead of both of us, and always will be. I'm one of the best at what I do. I can pay my rent, but nearing age 40 I still don't have enough to buy a house, and I'll never be able to retire.
No handouts. No entitlement. But a slightly more level playing field would be nice. If that makes me a liberal, so be it.
I'm sorry you see things this way Kirth. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. But, hey, vive la diffference, non?
I don't think anyone in their right mind would accuse Penn Gillette of being a right wing mouthpiece.Actually, he's a well-known Libertarian mouthpiece, so that would depend on what you mean by "right-wing." Socially? No, indeed. But economically-speaking, he's a majorly right-wing mouthpiece.
I thought he was anarcho-capitalist.
I am sorry if you find yourself not being compensated as you feel fit.
I don't think that almost anyone is compensated "as they feel fit," but, yeah, I'd like to be able to retire at 65, rather than hoping like hell to die before I run out of money. And if I'm "downsized" due to age at 55 (as so many people are now), then suicide is about the only option. Because according to the math, no matter how much I save, I can't afford to live to 85, and never will be able to afford it, short of winning the lottery. For a guy who got where he is by always taking the long view, that's sobering news.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. But, hey, vive la diffference, non?
Certainement! I respect your reply a great deal. Let me also apologize, as well -- I hadn't meant to come across quite so harshly.
I thought he was anarcho-capitalist.
He's a Cato Institute shill; their statement is "The Cato Institute is a public policy research organization — a think tank — dedicated to the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace." Looking at their site, individual liberty seems to take a distant back seat to free markets (and peace isn't even on the plate, as near as I can tell).
Lemme hasten to add that I love the guy, and I was a devotee of the show. I just think he sometimes goes overboard in harping his masters' credos. For example, baselessly claiming that secondhand smoke was harmless annoyed me -- although, to his credit, he later retracted that.
I thought he was anarcho-capitalist.He's a Cato Institute shill; their statement is "The Cato Institute is a public policy research organization — a think tank — dedicated to the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace." Looking at their site, individual liberty seems to take a distant back seat to free markets (and peace isn't even on the plate, as near as I can tell).
Lemme hasten to add that I love the guy, and I was a devotee of the show. I just think he sometimes goes overboard in harping his masters' credos. For example, baselessly claiming that secondhand smoke was harmless annoyed me -- although, to his credit, he later retracted that.
Cato has advocated for reduced military spending and less interventionist policies quite consistently. It doesn't seem to get much coverage though.
It has frustrated me for a long time that libertarian leaning Republicans like me and millions of others who have opposed preemptive war and deficit spending and entitlements for decades are largely ignored in the media.
Unfortunately this has allowed a broad misunderstanding to persist that the overwhelming majority of conservatives and Republicans simply went along with Bush's imperialist and statist policies. It frustrates me that the peace and individual liberty wing of the party is often treated as though it doesn't exist by all the big media outlets which seems to perpetuate the idea that we are a virtually non-existent minority.
That's kind of off topic from your observation about Cato right now. I don't think their work on peace, human rights, privacy, corrections reform, fighting against the drug war, and fighting for a more transparent and accountable government are in the spotlight very much right now with the economy in the toilette. I think that's regrettable, but the economy is clearly dominating everyone's attention.
|
|
Hahahahahaha....
My company matches 1% of the first $1,000/year (or something equally absurd), and zero after that. So their total cost on retirement for employees is $10/year per employee or less.
My employer has 401(k) matching @ 100% for the first 3% contributed, and at 50% for the next 3% contributed, for a total match of 4.5% of income with a contribution of 6.0% or better. Seems pretty generous to me.
Kirth, it sounds like your employer kinda sucks (or maybe that's just how it is in your industry). Either way, I can't imagine the program you have as even being worth the cost of administration...
I guess I'm lucky...I get 7% matched and an employer-paid pension equal to 3%.
Universal healthcare is great, and more Govenrments should try it.
I take on board HD's anti-union stance, although its clear that Unions in the US are a different breed to the rest of the World. That said, the right of a labour force to collectively bargain should be universal, and shame on WalMart for smacking down on that.
What I love though is this crazy notion that if a supermarket/dept store pays its people more then prices will skyrocket. Salary and wages costs are an almost insignificant incidental when determining the final price to a consumer, and one needs look no further than International chain ALDI to see that. They pay ABOVE what the Unionised places get and SAVE money by creating worker efficiencies and other cost saving practices. They dont care if you join a union either, join away.
One of our countries BEST PRACTICE major institutions also contacted us in my last job to help coordinate a major national roll out - figuring it was best to invite a union to participate in the roll out as they wanted to do the best thing by their workers.
In the UK several companies simply see it as a far more efficient and cost saving process to engage in talks with Unions as collective bargaining agents.
So it must just be the US that has issues - its funny because they are so anti-union, have one of the lower rates of union membership in the workd, yet still somehow claim a disproprtionate amount of union clout.
Got me stumped.
Universal healthcare is great, and more Govenrments should try it.
I take on board HD's anti-union stance, although its clear that Unions in the US are a different breed to the rest of the World. That said, the right of a labour force to collectively bargain should be universal, and shame on WalMart for smacking down on that.
What I love though is this crazy notion that if a supermarket/dept store pays its people more then prices will skyrocket. Salary and wages costs are an almost insignificant incidental when determining the final price to a consumer, and one needs look no further than International chain ALDI to see that. They pay ABOVE what the Unionised places get and SAVE money by creating worker efficiencies and other cost saving practices. They dont care if you join a union either, join away.
One of our countries BEST PRACTICE major institutions also contacted us in my last job to help coordinate a major national roll out - figuring it was best to invite a union to participate in the roll out as they wanted to do the best thing by their workers.
In the UK several companies simply see it as a far more efficient and cost saving process to engage in talks with Unions as collective bargaining agents.
So it must just be the US that has issues - its funny because they are so anti-union, have one of the lower rates of union membership in the workd, yet still somehow claim a disproprtionate amount of union clout.
Got me stumped.
I think that a lot of the clout for US unions comes from the fact that they have become political organs and in many ways this is harmful to their constituents.
For example, I would argue that the teachers unions are probably the single greatest impediment(s) to higher teacher pay and hiring more teachers in public schools.
The teachers unions wield substantial political power, but they do a dreadful job of advocating for teachers IMHO (in the US).
Universal healthcare is great, and more Govenrments should try it.
I take on board HD's anti-union stance, although its clear that Unions in the US are a different breed to the rest of the World. That said, the right of a labour force to collectively bargain should be universal, and shame on WalMart for smacking down on that.
What I love though is this crazy notion that if a supermarket/dept store pays its people more then prices will skyrocket. Salary and wages costs are an almost insignificant incidental when determining the final price to a consumer, and one needs look no further than International chain ALDI to see that. They pay ABOVE what the Unionised places get and SAVE money by creating worker efficiencies and other cost saving practices. They dont care if you join a union either, join away.
One of our countries BEST PRACTICE major institutions also contacted us in my last job to help coordinate a major national roll out - figuring it was best to invite a union to participate in the roll out as they wanted to do the best thing by their workers.
In the UK several companies simply see it as a far more efficient and cost saving process to engage in talks with Unions as collective bargaining agents.
So it must just be the US that has issues - its funny because they are so anti-union, have one of the lower rates of union membership in the workd, yet still somehow claim a disproprtionate amount of union clout.
Got me stumped.
I think that a lot of the clout for US unions comes from the fact that they have become political organs and in many ways this is harmful to their constituents.
For example, I would argue that the teachers unions are probably the single greatest impediment(s) to higher teacher pay and hiring more teachers in public schools.
The teachers unions wield substantial political power, but they do a dreadful job of advocating for teachers IMHO (in the US).
So it must just be the US that has issues - its funny because they are so anti-union, have one of the lower rates of union membership in the workd, yet still somehow claim a disproprtionate amount of union clout.Got me stumped.
I think that a lot of the clout for US unions comes from the fact that they have become political organs and in many ways this is harmful to their constituents.
For example, I would argue that the teachers unions are probably the single greatest impediment(s) to higher teacher pay and hiring more teachers in public schools.
The teachers unions wield substantial political power, but they do a dreadful job of advocating for teachers IMHO (in the US).
I'm not sure that American unions do have disproportionate political clout. Unless I am mistaken, in both Britain and Australia, the Labo(u)r Parties are organically based on the unions (although I remember that Tony Blair was trying to change that). In America, the unions are like blacks and homosexuals: a demographic that the Democratic party takes for granted, appeals to during election time and then ignores for the rest of the year.
I know that the two pieces of federal legislation that my union was lobbying for, the Employee Free Choice Act and some other act that was going to reclassify FedEx under the NLRA instead of the Railways Act were both pretty much abandoned by the Democrats after taking millions from the AFL-CIO and other unions. I haven't been keeping up with all of the details of the sham health-care reform (that my union has shamefully endorsed) but I do remember that at one point they were looking to tax "cadillac plans" to fund national health care. Many people may have assumed that these were targeting the uber-rich, but in reality they were gunning for union employees who have been able to bargain for some wicked awesome insurance coverage.
I also doubt that unions in the US are substantially different than unions anywhere else. There was a Danish poster who listed a bunch of things that unions do in his country and they pretty much do the same things here.
I would suggest that the anti-union American posters here have convinced some that, unlike the nice, socialist European unions, American unions are mafia-infested goon squads. My experiences in the labor movement have suggested two things: 1) that this is in no way as true as union-haters would like to think; 2) maybe they shouldn't have driven all the reds out of the unions back in the 1950s.
I thought he was anarcho-capitalist.I don't think anyone in their right mind would accuse Penn Gillette of being a right wing mouthpiece.Actually, he's a well-known Libertarian mouthpiece, so that would depend on what you mean by "right-wing." Socially? No, indeed. But economically-speaking, he's a majorly right-wing mouthpiece.
I thought anarcho-capitalists were libertarians.
|
|
I thought anarcho-capitalists were libertarians.I thought he was anarcho-capitalist.I don't think anyone in their right mind would accuse Penn Gillette of being a right wing mouthpiece.Actually, he's a well-known Libertarian mouthpiece, so that would depend on what you mean by "right-wing." Socially? No, indeed. But economically-speaking, he's a majorly right-wing mouthpiece.
Nah, Libertarians tend more towards minarchism than anarcho-capitalism. Of course, after nominating Bob Barr in '08, they're more like whores.
|
|
Just to add a UK perspective on pensions and union to join in the US and Australian ones.
My company pension is pure contribution based. Company over matches, to a maximum of 7% when the employee is at 5%. This is quite a good deal. There are some final salary pensions, but mostly in the public sector and most of those are being looked at again in the current government's spending plans. There is also a state pension based on number of years worked (with some phantom contributions for mothers to cover the years looking after children).
On unions, DA is correct. The Labour party, who just lost the election, are still heavily funded by the Trade Unions. However, the current, and previous, leadership of both unions and party have realised that if they give into the union demands too much, they lose elections. Thus the unions are generally less militant (with some exceptions. The Transport Workers in London are striking a lot at the moment) and the party gives less on issues to the unions.
And, famously, we have a state run, nationalised health service which isn't the most efficient in the world [gratuitous shot I should be ashamed for](although the UK still live longer and spend less on health than the US)[/gratuitous shot I should be ashamed for]. We also have private health insurance. Some companies provide health insurance as part of their package as well.
I'm not sure that American unions do have disproportionate political clout. Unless I am mistaken, in both Britain and Australia, the Labo(u)r Parties are organically based on the unions (although I remember that Tony Blair was trying to change that). In America, the unions are like blacks and homosexuals: a demographic that the Democratic party takes for granted, appeals to during election time and then ignores for the rest of the year.
You are correct the Labo(u)r parties in both the UK, New Zealand and Australia are/were the political arm of the Union movement.
I also doubt that unions in the US are substantially different than unions anywhere else. There was a Danish poster who listed a bunch of things that unions do in his country and they pretty much do the same things here.
From what I have seen US unions are less likely to resort to industrial action than Australian or UK unions. From what I have read they have the same goals and aspirations as their non US compatriots in the English speaking world.
I would suggest that the anti-union American posters here have convinced some that, unlike the nice, socialist European unions, American unions are mafia-infested goon squads. My experiences in the labor movement have suggested two things: 1) that this is in no way as true as union-haters would like to think; 2) maybe they shouldn't have driven all the reds out of the unions back in the 1950s.
I think the blind anti unionism is a holdover from McCarthyism anti immigrant racism and the need for business to maintain the bottom-line.
Anti Communism/MaCarthyism = Any organisation of the workforce political or social can lead to communism. Unions are then targeted as being in league with the communists and disloyal and traitors to America. The result of this is that the unions suffer a major dent to their image and one that it will not be able to shake for years to come.
A lot of early unionism came with the European diaspora. Many union members being poor Irish, Italians and others from Europe and that combined with the dangers of African American workforce organising were considered a threat to the stablity of the US. There you have the image of the gangster/mafia run unions, while there is a historical reality to some of this - it is no different the infiltration of organised crime into all levels of government during that period.
The primary goal of business is to make a profit - It is difficult to for business to see the cost benefits to having a unionised labour force and as employer groups have greater access to the media (read own the media) and the funds to run sustained anti Union campaigns. It no wonder when shock jocks and media pundits constantly bash unions that they have a bad image.
Nah, Libertarians tend more towards minarchism than anarcho-capitalism. Of course, after nominating Bob Barr in '08, they're more like whores.I thought anarcho-capitalists were libertarians.I thought he was anarcho-capitalist.I don't think anyone in their right mind would accuse Penn Gillette of being a right wing mouthpiece.Actually, he's a well-known Libertarian mouthpiece, so that would depend on what you mean by "right-wing." Socially? No, indeed. But economically-speaking, he's a majorly right-wing mouthpiece.
At least Barr renounced his sponsorship of DOMA and such, for what it's worth.
Nah, Libertarians tend more towards minarchism than anarcho-capitalism. Of course, after nominating Bob Barr in '08, they're more like whores.
Excellent! When can expect them to take their place as a major political party here in the U.S.? :P
|
Nah, Libertarians tend more towards minarchism than anarcho-capitalism. Of course, after nominating Bob Barr in '08, they're more like whores.I thought anarcho-capitalists were libertarians.I thought he was anarcho-capitalist.I don't think anyone in their right mind would accuse Penn Gillette of being a right wing mouthpiece.Actually, he's a well-known Libertarian mouthpiece, so that would depend on what you mean by "right-wing." Socially? No, indeed. But economically-speaking, he's a majorly right-wing mouthpiece.
Heh one thing I'll give the conservatives that our libertarian group seems to lack is some of that old time christian forgiveness. Especially since you know Barr is on record as saying he was wrong about many of the politically conservative stances he had taken.
It has frustrated me for a long time that libertarian leaning Republicans like me and millions of others who have opposed preemptive war and deficit spending and entitlements for decades are largely ignored in the media. Unfortunately this has allowed a broad misunderstanding to persist that the overwhelming majority of conservatives and Republicans simply went along with Bush's imperialist and statist policies.It frustrates me that the peace and individual liberty wing of the party is often treated as though it doesn't exist by all the big media outlets which seems to perpetuate the idea that we are a virtually non-existent minority.
How do you think is the best way to handle this difference in political opinion within the party? When I first heard about the Tea Party, I thought they would be more like this, I was disappointed to find out that they are not. However, I COULD be wrong- media spin and all that. Is forming a sub-party the best way to address this issue?
Nah, Libertarians tend more towards minarchism than anarcho-capitalism. Of course, after nominating Bob Barr in '08, they're more like whores.Excellent! When can expect them to take their place as a major political party here in the U.S.? :P
Hells yeah! I'm voting WHORE in the next election! At the very least it would look good on a ballot.
Bad joke ahead
|
|
At least Barr renounced his sponsorship of DOMA and such, for what it's worth.Nah, Libertarians tend more towards minarchism than anarcho-capitalism. Of course, after nominating Bob Barr in '08, they're more like whores.I thought anarcho-capitalists were libertarians.I thought he was anarcho-capitalist.I don't think anyone in their right mind would accuse Penn Gillette of being a right wing mouthpiece.Actually, he's a well-known Libertarian mouthpiece, so that would depend on what you mean by "right-wing." Socially? No, indeed. But economically-speaking, he's a majorly right-wing mouthpiece.
And the last time I was in the strip club, she told me she thought I was really cute, for what it's worth.
|
|
Nah, Libertarians tend more towards minarchism than anarcho-capitalism. Of course, after nominating Bob Barr in '08, they're more like whores.Excellent! When can expect them to take their place as a major political party here in the U.S.? :P
Any day now. They'll come out against something that scares everyone and then they'll find their own initially charismatic empty suit (why not? it's worked the last three times...) and they'll get their chance.
|
|
Heh one thing I'll give the conservatives that our libertarian group seems to lack is some of that old time christian forgiveness. Especially since you know Barr is on record as saying he was wrong about many of the politically conservative stances he had taken.Nah, Libertarians tend more towards minarchism than anarcho-capitalism. Of course, after nominating Bob Barr in '08, they're more like whores.I thought anarcho-capitalists were libertarians.I thought he was anarcho-capitalist.I don't think anyone in their right mind would accuse Penn Gillette of being a right wing mouthpiece.Actually, he's a well-known Libertarian mouthpiece, so that would depend on what you mean by "right-wing." Socially? No, indeed. But economically-speaking, he's a majorly right-wing mouthpiece.
She also told me she was working her way through college and taking care of her sick mother.
How do you think is the best way to handle this difference in political opinion within the party? When I first heard about the Tea Party, I thought they would be more like this, I was disappointed to find out that they are not. However, I COULD be wrong- media spin and all that. Is forming a sub-party the best way to address this issue?
It has frustrated me for a long time that libertarian leaning Republicans like me and millions of others who have opposed preemptive war and deficit spending and entitlements for decades are largely ignored in the media. Unfortunately this has allowed a broad misunderstanding to persist that the overwhelming majority of conservatives and Republicans simply went along with Bush's imperialist and statist policies.It frustrates me that the peace and individual liberty wing of the party is often treated as though it doesn't exist by all the big media outlets which seems to perpetuate the idea that we are a virtually non-existent minority.
That's a tough question that has frustrated me for many years. It has also frustrated many committed progressives who feel that the Dems are almost entirely prostituted to corporate power. If libertarian minded Republicans vote Libertarian or third party like Perot we are likely to give the election to the left. Likewise if progressives vote Green or Nader etc. then they are basically ceding national election to the Republicans.
The flip side of the coin is that the tea party element is unlikely to accomplish anything meaningful to it with just the house, so the most likely outcome of the next two years will be a continuation of massive deficits and the status quo.
If the tea party and fiscal hawks propose any entitlement reform the Democrats will run wall to wall ads in the next election cycle about how we're trying to starve grandma and little kids to give money away to billionaires. If they don't push hard for fiscal reform what was the point of voting them in? If we don't hold the Republican politicians accountable they will probably turn back into Democrats-lite like we had with Bush or McCain. This just means that the country is swirling the drain slightly more slowly. If we push the party to make any vaguely meaningful effort at entitlement reform and balancing the budget we are likely to pay a huge political price in 2012 which will perpetuate the status quo.
I can't speak for the rest of the country, but in El Paso county Colorado Ron Paul Republicans are a small (maybe 10%?) but active and organized segment of the Republican party. Social and religious conservatives dominate the party still, but they seem to understand that they losing the culture war overall. Libertarian leaning Republicans are also somewhat over represented in the tea party locally. I'd guess a good 20%, but the local and national media still acts like the tea party is just a club within the Republican party with monolithic positions. It's quite frustrating that the media takes it for granted that the tea party movement is just the GOP on steroids from a policy stand point. At least half of the tea party folks that I know have seriously considered leaving the GOP because of the Neocon take over and other policy issues.
She also told me she was working her way through college and taking care of her sick mother.Heh one thing I'll give the conservatives that our libertarian group seems to lack is some of that old time christian forgiveness. Especially since you know Barr is on record as saying he was wrong about many of the politically conservative stances he had taken.Nah, Libertarians tend more towards minarchism than anarcho-capitalism. Of course, after nominating Bob Barr in '08, they're more like whores.I thought anarcho-capitalists were libertarians.I thought he was anarcho-capitalist.I don't think anyone in their right mind would accuse Penn Gillette of being a right wing mouthpiece.Actually, he's a well-known Libertarian mouthpiece, so that would depend on what you mean by "right-wing." Socially? No, indeed. But economically-speaking, he's a majorly right-wing mouthpiece.
It's tough to give any politician the benefit of the doubt.
If the tea party and fiscal hawks propose any entitlement reform the Democrats will run wall to wall ads in the next election cycle about how we're trying to starve grandma and little kids to give money away to billionaires. If they don't push hard for fiscal reform what was the point of voting them in?
People see other ways to fiscal reform, rather than simply slashing Medicare. A lot of Dems, right or wrong, figure that Grandma and everyone else can get any number of entitlements for the cost of letting the capital gains tax cut expire -- or by simply pulling out of Iraq early. Indeed, part of the fiscal mess we're in is that Iraq and Afghanistan were considered "extra-budgetal," so those costs were never considered. Maybe it's time to start counting them.
|
|
She also told me she was working her way through college and taking care of her sick mother.Heh one thing I'll give the conservatives that our libertarian group seems to lack is some of that old time christian forgiveness. Especially since you know Barr is on record as saying he was wrong about many of the politically conservative stances he had taken.Nah, Libertarians tend more towards minarchism than anarcho-capitalism. Of course, after nominating Bob Barr in '08, they're more like whores.I thought anarcho-capitalists were libertarians.I thought he was anarcho-capitalist.I don't think anyone in their right mind would accuse Penn Gillette of being a right wing mouthpiece.Actually, he's a well-known Libertarian mouthpiece, so that would depend on what you mean by "right-wing." Socially? No, indeed. But economically-speaking, he's a majorly right-wing mouthpiece.
Sometimes it's actually true. Just because lots of them are lying, I'd rather take a person at their word until they do something to prove they're lying, then assume they're lying with no basis because other people have lied.
That's a tough question that has frustrated me for many years. It has also frustrated many committed progressives who feel that the Dems are almost entirely prostituted to corporate power. If libertarian minded Republicans vote Libertarian or third party like Perot we are likely to give the election to the left. Likewise if progressives vote Green or Nader etc. then they are basically ceding national election to the Republicans.
The flip side of the coin is that the tea party element is unlikely to accomplish anything meaningful to it with just the house, so the most likely outcome of the next two years will be a continuation of massive deficits and the status quo.
If the tea party and fiscal hawks propose any entitlement reform the Democrats will run wall to wall ads in the next election cycle about how we're trying to starve grandma and little kids to give money away to billionaires. If they don't push hard for fiscal reform what was the point of voting them in? If we don't hold the Republican politicians accountable they will probably turn back into Democrats-lite like we had with Bush or McCain. This just means that the country is swirling the drain slightly more slowly. If we push the party to make any vaguely meaningful effort at entitlement reform and balancing the budget we are likely to pay a huge political price in 2012 which will perpetuate the status quo.
I can't speak for the rest of the country, but in El Paso county Colorado Ron Paul Republicans are a small (maybe 10%?) but active and organized segment of the Republican party. Social and religious conservatives dominate the party still, but they seem to understand that they losing the culture war overall. Libertarian leaning Republicans are also somewhat over represented in the tea party locally. I'd guess a good 20%, but the local and national media still acts like the tea party is just a club within the Republican party with monolithic positions. It's quite frustrating that the media takes it for granted that the tea party movement is just the GOP on steroids from a policy stand point. At least half of the tea party folks that I know have seriously considered leaving the GOP because of the Neocon take over and other policy issues.
So, why don't they? Is it just that the Tea Party- or, to be fair, the Coffee Party or whatever the liberal version of it is- isn't putting their money where their mouth is with respect to being a third party, or do they just disagree on a handful of issues that don't constitute a true exodus? And if they DO leave, then where do they go? Liberarian, or something else? Or, on the other hand, is it the Republican party that has changed into something else? Are THEY the ones who should leave and become a true Neo-Conservative Party or somesuch and leave the Republican Party to more moderate heads?
If the tea party and fiscal hawks propose any entitlement reform the Democrats will run wall to wall ads in the next election cycle about how we're trying to starve grandma and little kids to give money away to billionaires. If they don't push hard for fiscal reform what was the point of voting them in?People see other ways to fiscal reform, rather than simply slashing Medicare. A lot of Dems, right or wrong, figure that Grandma and everyone else can get any number of entitlements for the cost of letting the capital gains tax cut expire -- or by simply pulling out of Iraq early. Indeed, part of the fiscal mess we're in is that Iraq and Afghanistan were considered "extra-budgetal," so those costs were never considered. Maybe it's time to start counting them.
Agreed. Still, Republicans/Conservatives are so mum on defense spending I don't know if we'll ever get a straight answer on the issue.
|
|
So, why don't they? Is it just that the Tea Party- or, to be fair, the Coffee Party or whatever the liberal version of it is- isn't putting their money where their mouth is with respect to being a third party, or do they just disagree on a handful of issues that don't constitute a true exodus? And if they DO leave, then where do they go? Liberarian, or something else? Or, on the other hand, is it the Republican party that has changed into something else? Are THEY the ones who should leave and become a true Neo-Conservative Party or somesuch and leave the Republican Party to more moderate heads?
One can only dream, personally I would just like to see a Christian party that way religious conservatism didn't needlessly infect the republican party.
And for the record I'm a devout christian, I attend church 4 days a week and have heard (second hand) that my name is being considered for deacon even though I'd have to decline if offered because I don't think I'm spiritually ready for a position of leadership in the church. That being said I don't believe in politically shoving my beliefs down others throats.
And for the record I'm a devout christian, I attend church 4 days a week and have heard (second hand) that my name is being considered for deacon even though I'd have to decline if offered because I don't think I'm spiritually ready for a position of leadership in the church. That being said I don't believe in politically shoving my beliefs down others throats.
A lot of the very devout protestants at the time of the founding of the U.S. were quite keen on separation of church and state, lest their organization get corrupted the way they reckoned the church in Rome had.
So, why don't they? Is it just that the Tea Party- or, to be fair, the Coffee Party or whatever the liberal version of it is- isn't putting their money where their mouth is with respect to being a third party, or do they just disagree on a handful of issues that don't constitute a true exodus? And if they DO leave, then where do they go? Liberarian, or something else? Or, on the other hand, is it the Republican party that has changed into something else? Are THEY the ones who should leave and become a true Neo-Conservative Party or somesuch and leave the Republican Party to more moderate heads?That's a tough question that has frustrated me for many years. It has also frustrated many committed progressives who feel that the Dems are almost entirely prostituted to corporate power. If libertarian minded Republicans vote Libertarian or third party like Perot we are likely to give the election to the left. Likewise if progressives vote Green or Nader etc. then they are basically ceding national election to the Republicans.
The flip side of the coin is that the tea party element is unlikely to accomplish anything meaningful to it with just the house, so the most likely outcome of the next two years will be a continuation of massive deficits and the status quo.
If the tea party and fiscal hawks propose any entitlement reform the Democrats will run wall to wall ads in the next election cycle about how we're trying to starve grandma and little kids to give money away to billionaires. If they don't push hard for fiscal reform what was the point of voting them in? If we don't hold the Republican politicians accountable they will probably turn back into Democrats-lite like we had with Bush or McCain. This just means that the country is swirling the drain slightly more slowly. If we push the party to make any vaguely meaningful effort at entitlement reform and balancing the budget we are likely to pay a huge political price in 2012 which will perpetuate the status quo.
I can't speak for the rest of the country, but in El Paso county Colorado Ron Paul Republicans are a small (maybe 10%?) but active and organized segment of the Republican party. Social and religious conservatives dominate the party still, but they seem to understand that they losing the culture war overall. Libertarian leaning Republicans are also somewhat over represented in the tea party locally. I'd guess a good 20%, but the local and national media still acts like the tea party is just a club within the Republican party with monolithic positions. It's quite frustrating that the media takes it for granted that the
Already answered, see bolded text.
So, why don't they? Is it just that the Tea Party- or, to be fair, the Coffee Party or whatever the liberal version of it is- isn't putting their money where their mouth is with respect to being a third party, or do they just disagree on a handful of issues that don't constitute a true exodus? And if they DO leave, then where do they go? Liberarian, or something else? Or, on the other hand, is it the Republican party that has changed into something else? Are THEY the ones who should leave and become a true Neo-Conservative Party or somesuch and leave the Republican Party to more moderate heads?One can only dream, personally I would just like to see a Christian party that way religious conservatism didn't needlessly infect the republican party.
And for the record I'm a devout christian, I attend church 4 days a week and have heard (second hand) that my name is being considered for deacon even though I'd have to decline if offered because I don't think I'm spiritually ready for a position of leadership in the church. That being said I don't believe in politically shoving my beliefs down others throats.
Yikes, 4 days a week? Go for it man, there's clearly something there that others might be seeing that you aren't.
A good example of this is Wal-Mart. There are no unioned Wal-Mart employees.Why? Aren't people allowed to join one?
Wal-Mart has a policy that if the word "union" is mentioned anywhere on their property they have a million dollar anti-union program that goes into effect.
I am only aware of two Wal-Marts where the employees successfully organized--one in Quebec and one (I think) in Vermont. Each store was immediately closed.
So, no. People aren't allowed to join one.
What happened in those two places after Walmart left? If there was a demand for the goods and services Walmart provided then someone would have filled that demand. There may have been a period of adjustment for locals, but they obviously had somewhere to buy things before Walmart turned up and would again have alternatives once Walmart left.
If there wasn't the demand then why did Walmart go there in the first place? Was it to stifle competition and make it the only place to shop in town?
A lot of the very devout protestants at the time of the founding of the U.S. were quite keen on separation of church and state, lest their organization get corrupted the way they reckoned the church in Rome had.
I am wondering who you have in mind when you say this.
If the tea party and fiscal hawks propose any entitlement reform the Democrats will run wall to wall ads in the next election cycle about how we're trying to starve grandma and little kids to give money away to billionaires. If they don't push hard for fiscal reform what was the point of voting them in?People see other ways to fiscal reform, rather than simply slashing Medicare. A lot of Dems, right or wrong, figure that Grandma and everyone else can get any number of entitlements for the cost of letting the capital gains tax cut expire -- or by simply pulling out of Iraq early. Indeed, part of the fiscal mess we're in is that Iraq and Afghanistan were considered "extra-budgetal," so those costs were never considered. Maybe it's time to start counting them.
I think our military spending is entirely out of control. I think invading Iraq (or any other preemptive war) is wrong and wasteful. Of course I want to reduce all government spending and all government power drastically.
I understand that defense is a core constitutional function of government, and I get that the notion of trying to control defense spending during two over seas conflicts is very counter intuitive to my fellow Republicans, but we simply cannot afford to spend more on defense than the next half dozen nations combined by borrowing money.
I'm not sure how to address progressives who think that more and more of the private sector should be controlled, regulated, and taxed by the government, but if they were honest they would admit that they want to continue the expansion of the government through spending, taxing, and borrowing. Conservatives (as opposed to neocons) would admit that we want to cut entitlement spending and discretionary social spending sharply if we are serious and honest about balancing the budget.
Most Americans seem to think some kind of compromise is the answer. I don't.
I must agree that the bush era practice of financing the wars through "supplementals" was nakedly political book keeping. I would cite it as part of why Bush was not a conservative in any real sense, but I imagine my contempt for Bush is well established.
|
|
We need to cut our budget by 15% to have no deficit spending? Fine! Every single department, every single program, every single budget used to pay for every single function of government is hereby cut 15%. Easy. Simple. Absolutely fair. No exceptions.
The bureaucrats can sort out out how they will deal with their cut.
We need to cut our budget by 15% to have no deficit spending? Fine! Every single department, every single program, every single budget used to pay for every single function of government is hereby cut 15%. Easy. Simple. Absolutely fair. No exceptions.
So the Bush tax cuts stay, but are reduced by 15%? Interesting.
What about programs that require "X" amount to operate, and have a budget of X? Might as well slash them altogether, if 0.85X = 0X for all intents and purposes, and save that much more.
We need to cut our budget by 15% to have no deficit spending? Fine! Every single department, every single program, every single budget used to pay for every single function of government is hereby cut 15%. Easy. Simple. Absolutely fair. No exceptions.So the Bush tax cuts stay, but are reduced by 15%? Interesting.
What about programs that require "X" amount to operate, and have a budget of X? Might as well slash them altogether, if 0.85X = 0X for all intents and purposes, and save that much more.
I concur. Let the cutting begin. Government spending is definitely one of those things that makes me wonder how it is possible to spend gigantic sums of money on certain functions to get horrible results.
For instance, we spend around 45 billion on the Dept of Labor, but we still have very preventable mining, drilling and refinery disasters that result in dozens of casualties. Less than 2% of labor's budget goes to OSHA and MSHA. OSHA makes very little difference to workplace safety, but what does the Dept. of Labor do with the other 40+ billion per year? Is it really worth borrowing 40+ billion a year whatever it is?
Sadly many people will read this and think, "It's ONLY 40 billion.", and that's a huge part of the problem IMO.
|
|
What about programs that require "X" amount to operate, and have a budget of X? Might as well slash them altogether, if 0.85X = 0X for all intents and purposes, and save that much more.
Every government program requires 110% of their current budget to operate at minimum usefulness. Just ask them.
Look, I'd love to say "Make sensible cuts. There's fat here and over there. Cut that first." But then you get the Washington Monument ploy here there and everywhere.
If every single department is cut 15% (off Zero Based Budgenting, none of this retarded "we're only getting a 3% raise in our budget this year instead of the projected 6% You cut our budged by 50%!" crap), then they can choose where those savings will some from in their department.
When you have a budget shortfall, what do you do? If your income is 15% lower than your current expenditures, you can either borrow (what we're doing now...) or you can cut. Most people attack the budget expenditure much more intelligently (paying 85% of rent still leaves you homeless), but then people have a much better incentive to budget - they have to suffer the results of their bad budgeting eventually.
I can't think of a way to introduce incentives for efficiency into government that isn't forced on it by an active and informed citizenry punishing any and all irresponsibility with voting the perpetrators out of office regularly - are reelecting those that are good stewards.
Just cut every department by 15%. Let them sort out the specifics from there.
(and tax cuts aren't an expenditure. You could argue they're a loss of oportunity of income, I would argue that higher tax rates nearly always end up in reduced revenues.)
|
|
A good example of this is Wal-Mart. There are no unioned Wal-Mart employees.Why? Aren't people allowed to join one?
Wal-Mart has a policy that if the word "union" is mentioned anywhere on their property they have a million dollar anti-union program that goes into effect.
I am only aware of two Wal-Marts where the employees successfully organized--one in Quebec and one (I think) in Vermont. Each store was immediately closed.
So, no. People aren't allowed to join one.
What happened in those two places after Walmart left? If there was a demand for the goods and services Walmart provided then someone would have filled that demand. There may have been a period of adjustment for locals, but they obviously had somewhere to buy things before Walmart turned up and would again have alternatives once Walmart left.
If there wasn't the demand then why did Walmart go there in the first place? Was it to stifle competition and make it the only place to shop in town?
Actually, what usually happens, especially in a place like Vermont, where no place in the state is very far from a border, the people who want that service go to the Walmart in NY or NH. Same as when the protesters successfully fought Walmart in Massachusetts. The town didn't benefit, shoppers just went to the Walmart 20 miles away in New Hampshire.
Walmart figures it'll create its own demand just by existing. Most times, they're right. Not many Walmarts close due to lack of business.
|
|
We need to cut our budget by 15% to have no deficit spending? Fine! Every single department, every single program, every single budget used to pay for every single function of government is hereby cut 15%. Easy. Simple. Absolutely fair. No exceptions.So the Bush tax cuts stay, but are reduced by 15%? Interesting.
What about programs that require "X" amount to operate, and have a budget of X? Might as well slash them altogether, if 0.85X = 0X for all intents and purposes, and save that much more.
There isn't a government agency that "needs" "x". Bureaucratic waste is rampant at the Federal level. I handled a billion dollars a year assigning Border Patrol, ATF, DEA, FBI, Customs, FEMA, US Protective Service and other agencies vehicles, and saw first hand how much money was wasted in inefficiency and poor (because GSA is stupid) procurement policy. I used to ask weekly why we couldn't go with vendor A or stop buying way more sheet metal than was needed, etc, and was told I was out of line.
Use it or lose it, and ask for more every two seconds is the way the Fed bureaucracy does "business".
Heck, there are GAO studies that show less than 40% of entitlement outlays actually get to end users. Bureaucratic costs (as in having ten government employees to do three people's worth of work and poor efficiency standards) eat up most of our tax dollars. We could fund the exact level of social service we have now for 25% less, easily, if government had any incentive to be efficient. But the opposite is actually the case. Efficiency is punished by bureaucrats protecting their job over being a civil servant.
They serve themselves first. Sorry, but it's true.
If your income is 15% lower than your current expenditures, you can either borrow (what we're doing now...) or you can cut.
Or you can increase the income (like rolling back the cuts to capital gains tax, or enforcing the tax on oil leases in the Gulf)... but for that to have any effect at all, you still need some way of capping spending, or else budgets magically mushroom to eat up the surplus and then some. Seems to me that until we, the people, have some means of enforcing spending within a budget (Constitutional amendment, maybe?) then any strategy is doomed to fail -- we've seen from evidence that no one in government, in either party, will actually cut or cap spending otherwise.
Bureaucratic waste is rampant at the Federal level. They serve themselves first. Sorry, but it's true.
Understood, but recognizing it doesn't change it. Electing the "other team" doesn't, either. Maybe I'm overly cynical, but I strongly believe that ANYONE elected will do exactly the same (remember "read my lips..."), unless there are some means in place enforcing things otherwise. Democrat Dan, Republican Rick, Libertarian Lou, and Tea Party Ted will all claim to be in favor of cutting spending, in order to get elected, but that lasts only until you hand them the credit card.
When we can properly word, propose, and pass an amendment that requires balanced spending by the government, then we have an argument. Until then it's just idle mumbling.
Bureaucratic waste is rampant at the Federal level. They serve themselves first. Sorry, but it's true.Understood, but recognizing it doesn't change it. Electing the "other team" doesn't, either. Maybe I'm overly cynical, but I strongly believe that ANYONE elected will do exactly the same (remember "read my lips..."), unless there are some means in place enforcing things otherwise. Democrat Dan, Republican Rick, Libertarian Lou, and Tea Party Ted will all claim to be in favor of cutting spending, in order to get elected, but that lasts only until you hand them the credit card.
When we can properly word, propose, and pass an amendment that requires balanced spending by the government, then we have an argument. Until then it's just idle mumbling.
A constitutional amendment requiring a two thirds super majority for any deficit spending would be good start.
A constitutional amendment requiring a two thirds super majority for any deficit spending would be good start.
I admire how you've provided an "out" (in case of totally unforseen emergency circumstances) -- making it possible in extremis, but difficult enough that it can't be done idly. Good show.
I should think we also need some stipulations as to what happens if our elected officials throw a tantrum -- does the whole government shut down, police and fire department personnel get sent home, and anarchy descends? I wouldn't want to give them blackmail potential to force a supermajority ("Vote Yes for emergency spending or all Federal highways will be closed" or the like).