Putin calls USA a parasite on the world economy!

[Gator]

Poor vs Rich... that's pretty democratic isn't it?

The American tradition has never been about class warfare.  This is something new that started with the incumbent. This is bad, real bad. 
 
 

I  think the deciding factor will be whether or not taxes on the rich are raised or no, even if it's just letting the Bush tax cuts expire..

As discussed before, taxing the rich will not begin to solve the debt problem.  I agree with you that taxes are a battleline - not because they solve the problem but because they symbolize the struggle between big government and efficient government forces.  The middle class is not for taxing the rich because such revenues skip them and go to the lower income class.  And when those taxes are not enough, the middle class is next to pay more taxes.

[Faux Pas]

What?  Where have we put troops on the ground in combat? The private investments in Vietnam were mostly French.  In Iraq, the Russians and French accounted for much of the international trade, even violating the boycot.  In Afghanistan, the major trade was derivatives  of the opium poppy followed probably by pistachios.

The most recent one being Iraq. 10 years ago I would have argued to the death that it wasn't about oil. It was about ridding the world of a despot and allowing some democracy in the ME.  What a difference 10 years make.
 

I was wrong, you are an isolationist.  You want the US to be a self-sufficient island?   While the rest of the world actively participates in a global economy?  In one generation we would indeed fall behind much of the world.  Afghanistan is largely isolated.   

I don't think so but, perhaps I am. Self-sufficient absolutely. An island no. We can participate in a global economy without being the rape victim. I am all for a free market global economy until the imbalance is us. Allowing companies to leave the US and ship the goods back makes how much sense?
 

Economic theory states that if another country is able to produce something for a lower cost than we can, we should buy it from them and use the savings for other needs.  Such will of course result in displacement of the labor force, yet in an efficient expanding economy those workers need to mobilize around newer products with higher value added.  The key is to innovate and adapt.  Economic Darwinism.   

Excellent in theory yet, falls woefully short in application. The mass exodus of manufacturing encouraged by NAFTA has left the US unable to compete. We tilted the level playing field in the opponents favor and we are still encouraging it today. IMHO, the participation in a Global economy should come second, not first as it does over the needs of our country
 

A global economy is not the problem.   The problem is us.  We are our own enemy.  We need leadership, not to protect those without healthcare insurance, but to align the institutions of the US  for the competition we face.  If successful, we can afford national health programs.

Agreed. That has been my point in this post. The period of prosperity over the rest of the world has ended. We no longer need to feel guilty and attempt to raise the world to our previous quality of life. We need to raise ours to theirs. We can't do it playing partisan politics with our future. We indeed need a leader.

[SFandEE]

http://www.nps.gov/history/logcabin/html/tr3.html


"Walk softly and carry a big stick"


I love thus snippet about how Teddy Roosevelt dared to represent all Americans.


Other than MLB--which industry is protected by the Sherman Antitrust Act?  Hint--if you are throwing around the word Obamacare you should know why this industry needs special protection from market activity.


Do Americans who prefer their political flavoring to be Republican want free markets or pro-American citizen markets?  Are our trade relations with China free markets or fair markets?  What is the American government position on fair trade with China?


Just saw a posting about our war machine profits.  Anyone for free trade on our military.  Why don't we hire Bangladeshi's at market rates to man our posts in Germany, South Korea, Japan, and better yet--Afghanistan and Iraq.   Any outsourcing issues there from true blue free market people?  Cheaper for the same quality is better right?

[BC]

BC

Did you even read that? It does nothing to refute my position.

I not only read, but try to comprehend as well.

Read again.

[BC]

I was wrong, you are an isolationist.  You want the US to be a self-sufficient island?   While the rest of the world actively participates in a global economy?  In one generation we would indeed fall behind much of the world.  Afghanistan is largely isolated.   

Gator,

For many years, the strength of the US was largely based on a balance of self-sufficiency.
 

Economic theory states that if another country is able to produce something for a lower cost than we can, we should buy it from them and use the savings for other needs.  Such will of course result in displacement of the labor force, yet in an efficient expanding economy those workers need to mobilize around newer products with higher value added.  The key is to innovate and adapt.  Economic Darwinism.

Indeed, but there is a balance where dependency overwhelms innovation.  That line has been crossed.   
 

A global economy is not the problem.   The problem is us.  We are our own enemy.  We need leadership, not to protect those without healthcare insurance, but to align the institutions of the US  for the competition we face.  If successful, we can afford national health programs.

Here, I believe you correctly pin the tail to the donkey, but remember it takes more than one man, much more, to change the course of an object already in motion, especially one with vast quantities of inertia like the US.

The general population is maybe getting too used to concepts like 'customer satisfaction' and 'instant gratification'.  The motions of Nations are great and take time and patience to change.  Obama in a way, has pointed the way north, but is now being criticized for not delivering less than two thirds of the way through his first term.

Obviously, paths taken in the past were wrong and self-serving.  I think folks in the US simply need to realize that true change takes generations and not to expect results within the short term of a presidency.

It's not Walmart where dislike can be instantly exchanged or reimbursed.

[BC]

Other than MLB--which industry is protected by the Sherman Antitrust Act?  Hint--if you are throwing around the word Obamacare you should know why this industry needs special protection from market activity.

SF,

Help me  understand... are we talking Major League Baseball protected by the Sherman Antitrust act?

[/quote]

[SFandEE]

SF,

Help me  understand... are we talking Major League Baseball protected by the Sherman Antitrust act?

The health care industry has exemption from anti-trust legislation that has been bought to create an unfavorable market for consumers.


http://salem-news.com/articles/may082010/health-antitrust-re.php


I will try and bring this back to Putin throwing some light on the parasitic nature of the USA on the world economy.


Putin is a world leader--like him or not, he is a player on the world stage that has brought up an important issue--agree or disagree he should not be dismissed out of hand.


For several pages several of us have been going back and forth about what is a parasite.  Is it a multi-national company that has lobbyists and lawyers (GE) that negotiates no federal tax or an inner city man on welfare who moves in and out of jail for criminal burglary to support a drug habit.


I have been trying to get the discussion away from "job creators" and the poor.  Class envy/warfare.


Whatever your politics can we agree that American politics is corrupt?  Can we agree that we are a debtor nation with the largest trade deficit of any nation on earth?  Can we agree that in 2008 we witnessed failed CEOs of failed banks and insurance companies negotiate with our government to reward them with massive allowances paid for by debt?  Can we find a common agreement that whichever political party we champion that neither party will put forward a candidate that will not fight corruption in our government?  Whether you want bigger or smaller government less corrupt would be good!!!!


It is possible to be an American company and have no interest in creating American jobs, providing quality products and services, and obeying American laws.  If you can buy our government you can create more profit by being a bad actor in capitalism.  Corrupt capitalism is a parasite to the world economy and I am glad Putin called the US out on this behavior. 

[Anotherkiwi]

Why do I think Obama is so bad?   When I voted in the last election, I didn't vote for him but to be honest I was not unhappy that he was elected.  I thought he might make changes that would be good for the country and I was happy to see the first black president...
 
However once elected I found him to be the biggest disappointment I have ever seen.   I am a Republican but not a diehard Republican.  I am however definitely a conservative and perhaps an ultra conservative.   I believe that the less government you have the better.  I did not care for the health care program at all, my biggest dislike was the requirement for everyone to purchase health care.  There are better ways to reform health care.  I don't care for the way he operates.  I didn't like the way health care was passed.  I don't think you can spend your way to prosperity.  He went into office promising to work with Republicans but when he didn't need them he treated them like dirt or at least like they were non existant.  So much of what he said in his campaign turned out to be lies.  Basically he hasn't a clue how to fix the economy and that is my biggest dislike.

Thank you...a straightforward, reasonable answer which relates directly to the questions I posed.  However, I still can't understand why you people have to purchase health care.  Why can't your governments (over the last 80? years) work out an equitable free (or mainly so) healthcare system like those enjoyed by the rest of the first world?  Why is your taxation revenue so far out of whack that you can't allow for this?
 

There were elements of the recovery programs that I thought were good such as cash for clunkers and the first time home buyers programs but the spending on infrastructure was bad. 

Even Faux Pas might agree with this one.
 

One of the biggest flaws of the way government operates today is that Representatives are judged by their constituents on how much federal money they can get for their district.  I don't like the way appropriations are tacked on to unrelated bills at the last minute.  Personally I think the budget cutting should start with our government officials.  They should be on social security, they should be on the new health care program.  They should have their expenses based on an inverse amount the government spends over what it takes in.  In other words if we have a 40% deficit then their operating costs should be reduced by 40%.  Give them an incentive for cutting expenses.  We should have one allowance for regional government programs that is divided by the population in the area.  They should be allowed to spend that amount on earmarks and it should be capped at that amount.  It would be fair for everyone and cut costs dramatically.

Not just today - it seems to have been like that for a very long time.  Why are appropriations allowed to be tacked onto unrelated matters in your system?  Our Parliament can't do that (thankfully!).   Your very good summation would, unfortunately I fear, be laughed off Capitol Hill.

[Anotherkiwi]

Faux Pas, you have demonstrated yet again that you're a narrow-minded, insular and ignorant (in the true sense of the word) person who reads into other people's postings only what you want to see.  Turboguy was kind enough to reply to my earlier post with a reasoned and reasonable summary of what he thinks is wrong with your current Presidency.  You, on the other hand, charge in as the all-knowing, all-seeing one whose views are the only ones which matter.
 

You know Anotherkiwi, that your post really does reek of arrogance? Whether it is intended or not I don't know so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I can only imagine you, not being a citizen or living here generally, just only see, what you wish to see. You don't have the advantage of feeling the sting of Obama's presidency directly. The crumbling of the US economy and our inability to function politically will greatly empower other political leaders and machines in the world. You should pray that better ones come along and take the world stage.

What is arrogant about wanting to become better-informed about your political system?  Your country contains only about 4% of the world's population - most of the other 96% don't give a damn about you.  You should actually be grateful that some of us care enough to ask "why" you're making these comments.

I am not a life long Republican. I was an active member of the Republican party at one time until I realized there wasn't a dimes worth of difference in the the two parties where my personal concerns laid. It isn't appearance, he is bad for the country and has a single minded agenda. Mostly, those that "relish" sticking knives in his back as you say, are those who have to fund and finance his agenda which generally does not work in our benefit or advantage.

I see  - you're happy to stick a knife in his back because his agenda does not suit yours.  Very unworthy, but apparently typical of the "me" generation.

Because he is black? That is a racist accusation and not worthy of a response.

Why is it racist?  It was a question, not a statement of fact.  Turboguy was able to see that - unfortunately your antipathy and blinkered attitude towards me precludes you from acknowledging the same.

IMO, most everyone would love to see Obama succeed, it's not happening. The fact that you ask these questions would indicate you believe we should support failure?

I'm glad that you want to see your President succeed.  Why should my asking the questions indicate a support for failure?  I'm trying to understand WHY you don't like him - if there are coherent reasons, then I will be somewhat wiser, won't I?
 

You have a very decidedly left wing liberal slant to this accusation. Keep in mind it is only an accusation with no basis of fact. That's okay, don't let the facts get in the way of how you wish to perceive the US. Obamacare as it stands right now will bankrupt the country. Obamacare will not solve the healthcare problem that currently exist in this country. Except for those who exempted themselves from Obamacare, the remainder of us will have an extremely diluted and poor quality of healthcare. Those who have to pay for it, reject that idea.

What accusation?  Accusing you of being a Republican?  Go back and read my post again - where are the facts getting in the way of my perceptions?  You seem to have missed my point that I actually agree that Obamacare, as it stands at the moment, is not good for you.  What I would like to see is for all (both?) parties to get together to come up with a workable solution.  Other countries manage it - that is, nearly every other developed country in the world.  Why can't you?
 

The idea that because the majority of Americans reject Obamacare doesn't mean we do not care for helping our fellow man or those less fortunate. Quite the opposite.

I'm glad to hear it.  Now do something about it.
 

Again, you are merely parroting the far left agaenda.

 
How can I, when I have no idea what you're talking about?  Presumably your "far left agenda" involves free, equal medical care for all - if so, I'm all for it.

Dubya was a complete disaster as President yet, is head and shoulders better than Obama. Tell me AK, what do you know (and stick to the facts rather than the chants of your left leaning information sources) of Palin or Bachman?  Are you a misogynist? What is it exactly you find distasteful about a woman with conservative leanings and ideals? Can women not provide leadership in your opinion?

I don't have "left leaning information sources" - I have a television set where I see these women being interviewed and uttering such ridiculous twaddle that I'm surprised even their own families take them seriously.  Am I a misogynist?  Of course not, or I would not be looking for a bride from the FSU (hooray, I can finally get back to why we're here!).  I find nothing distasteful about conservative women - but at least I have nothing against left leaning liberal ones.
 
As for leadership - why is yours one of a tiny handful of Western countries which has never had a woman leader?  Try looking at my country if you want examples of how women are treated in politics.
 
First country to give women the vote - New Zealand
First country to elect a woman Member of Parliament - New Zealand
First country to have a female Cabinet Minister (equivalent to your Secretary of Justice, State, etc) - New Zealand

Although the world's first female Prime Minister (Sirimavo Bandaranaike of Ceylon, 1960-65) preceded ours by quite some time, we have already had two.  Having met both of them, and knowing one of them now for many years, I'm quite satisfied with their quality - unlike Mesdames Palin and Bachman.
 

You strike me as a fine example of what is wrong not only in my country but, in the world as well. You've been both divided and conquered. Your mind is closed to the realities because someone told you so.

More disappointing rubbish.  How can I be an example of what is wrong in your country?  Divided and conquered by whom?  You?  What realities?  I'm trying to broaden my knowledge by taking an interest in a country which I will never visit again - how much do you know about mine (or Britain, or Norway, or even Australia?).  I realise that you don't need to know anything about mine, but it would be courteous of you to at least make a tiny effort before spouting off.
 
I had actually been quite impressed by some of what you had written lately.  It's a shame that such good work can be so easily undone when you start to read hidden meanings into the most benign enquiries.

[Boethius]

First country to elect a woman Member of Parliament - New Zealand

 
I was not sure this was true.  I had to look up the first NZ female MP elected, and it was apparently in 1933.
 
http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/elizabeth-mccombs-elected-as-nzs-first-woman-mp


Canada’s first female MP was elected in 1921.

http://archives.cbc.ca/politics/federal_politics/clips/12753/
 
The United States elected its first female member of Congress in 1916,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeannette_Rankin

the first female senator was elected in 1922,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hattie_Caraway

and I know that women could be elected to office as early as 1788.

 
 

First country to have a female Cabinet Minister (equivalent to your Secretary of Justice, State, etc) - New Zealand

Mabel Howard – 1947 -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mabel_Howard


 
First female cabinet minister in the UK, appointed in 1929 -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Bondfield



First  female in the U.S. Cabinet – Frances Perkins, appointed by FDR in 1933 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Perkins


I agree with you, it's always a great idea to learn about other countries and cultures.
 

[Anotherkiwi]

 ...I agree with you, it's always a great idea to learn about other countries and cultures.

Hoist by own petard, shot down in flames!  Boethius 3, Anotherkiwi 0.
 
Just for something totally  , it snowed in Auckland today for the first time since 1939.  What came down only just qualified (and nowhere near me), but other parts of the country, such as Wellington, are getting huge dumps at the moment, the likes of which haven't been seen for 40 years.
 
And for something very different, but right back on topic, I hope to start a unique trip report in a few days' time...watch this space!

[Turboguy]

Thank you...a straightforward, reasonable answer which relates directly to the questions I posed.  However, I still can't understand why you people have to purchase health care.  Why can't your governments (over the last 80? years) work out an equitable free (or mainly so) healthcare system like those enjoyed by the rest of the first world?  Why is your taxation revenue so far out of whack that you can't allow for this?
 

Thanks for the nice comments Kiwi.  I have a question for you. Why is it the responsibility of the government to provide health care?   If they provide health care should the government not also cook our breakfast, help us dress and shine our shoes?
 
Health care does not have to cost what it does here.  When I was a kid a hospital room and a hotel room were not that different in price.  I came across a bill for when my grandfather died in 1959.  Four days in the hospital, surgeon, anaesthesiologist, operating room $ 450.00.  One third the price of a new car in those days and affordable for most.  Now that would be in 6 figures and the price of three cars. 
 
My wife is going to need a root canal.  Her choices are she can have it here or she can go back to Russia.  The cost won't be much different.  The difference is she can get the root canal in Russia and including the airfare back home for nearly the same price as the root canal here.
 
The problem here Kiwi is that some of our systems are so broken, people can't afford health care or the insurance to pay for it.  I believe we would be better off fixing the things that are broken then decide if people or the government should pay for it and it would be affordable then.

[BC]

Why is it the responsibility of the government to provide health care?   If they provide health care should the government not also cook our breakfast, help us dress and shine our shoes?
 
....
 
The problem here Kiwi is that some of our systems are so broken, people can't afford health care or the insurance to pay for it.  I believe we would be better off fixing the things that are broken then decide if people or the government should pay for it and it would be affordable then.

You answered your own question.  If healthcare was affordable, this would be a non-issue.

Universal healthcare has proven benefits, to individuals and society.

Healthier workforce
Lower costs
High quality
Less stress in times of sickness speedier recovery
Less economic stress increased security, dramatically reduced bankruptcies.

I lost my job because I got really sick from simple to cure health issue that got worse because I could not afford a short hospital stay, ended up for months in a charity hospital. Defaulted on my home because I lost my job, my car was repo'd and I'm living under a bridge because the shelters are full of folks like me. I hitched a ride to come here for an interview because there ain't a bus stop anywhere near here.

Will you hire me TG?

[Faux Pas]

Faux Pas, you have demonstrated yet again that you're a narrow-minded, insular and ignorant (in the true sense of the word) person who reads into other people's postings only what you want to see.  Turboguy was kind enough to reply to my earlier post with a reasoned and reasonable summary of what he thinks is wrong with your current Presidency.  You, on the other hand, charge in as the all-knowing, all-seeing one whose views are the only ones which matter.
 

It is a shame and a pity you don't possess the intelligence to recognize an honest, open debate. You posted an open question in the forum from your ill perceived perch of superiority. You didn't receive the warm response you had hoped to help justify your misconceptions. You immediately resort to name calling, the last refuge of an idiot. You lose, you are dismissed.

[Anotherkiwi]

Thanks for the nice comments Kiwi.  I have a question for you. Why is it the responsibility of the government to provide health care?   If they provide health care should the government not also cook our breakfast, help us dress and shine our shoes?

I believe it's the government's responsibility because they are the ones who create the health service and run it (at least in this part of the world).  They don't need to cook our breakfast and all the rest of that simply because we are nearly all capable of doing it ourselves.  We can't all run a health service!  It's the same as other big-ticket items such as defence and education - governments are usually the best people to run the portfolio, although of course there are individuals who are capable of running parts of the system (they're called generals, or school principals).
 

Health care does not have to cost what it does here.  When I was a kid a hospital room and a hotel room were not that different in price.  I came across a bill for when my grandfather died in 1959.  Four days in the hospital, surgeon, anaesthesiologist, operating room $ 450.00.  One third the price of a new car in those days and affordable for most.  Now that would be in 6 figures and the price of three cars.

 

For us, as I've posted in other threads, hospital care is free if you stay in the public system. We do have the option of private healthcare if we want to pay for it - the only difference in many cases is the time on the waiting list, because much surgery in both types of establishment is performed by the same people.
 

My wife is going to need a root canal.  Her choices are she can have it here or she can go back to Russia.  The cost won't be much different.  The difference is she can get the root canal in Russia and including the airfare back home for nearly the same price as the root canal here.

The question that you would both be asking yourselves is surely whether or not the flight back to Russia would result in a better job.  If not, the extra price where you are ($100-$200?) would justify not travelling.
 

The problem here Kiwi is that some of our systems are so broken, people can't afford health care or the insurance to pay for it.  I believe we would be better off fixing the things that are broken then decide if people or the government should pay for it and it would be affordable then.

This is what I can't understand - you all seem to agree that the healthcare system is in dire need of reform (presumably not the staff, apart from doctors who are more worried about their malpractice insurance than treating patients).  President Obama seems to have made it his mission to be remembered for Obamacare, but everyone on this forum suggests that it is no good (for whatever reason).  Are Congress and the Senate so entrenched in their thinking, and in their fear of voter backlash, that they are totally incapable of trying to find a fair and equitable solution?
 
BC has dived in with a quicker, and much wittier, answer while I've been dissecting the whole post.

[Anotherkiwi]

It is a shame and a pity you don't possess the intelligence to recognize an honest, open debate. You posted an open question in the forum from your ill perceived perch of superiority. You didn't receive the warm response you had hoped to help justify your misconceptions. You immediately resort to name calling, the last refuge of an idiot. You lose, you are dismissed.

Yet again you can't see what's in front of your face.  I have no perch of superiority, perceived or otherwise.  I wasn't expecting a warm response - because I'm a "foreigner" I was hoping for a reasoned answer, and got that from Turboguy.  I haven't misconceived anything, unless it's your ability to be consistent.  Strange as it may seem, I do take note of what you write in certain areas, because most of it appears to be sensible advice (although sometimes rather heavy-handed).  And (shock/horror!) we have actually agreed on matters in some threads.  Unfortunately your arrogance occasionally gets the better of you.  I'm not dismissed - I'll go if and when I want to.

[Turboguy]

I believe it's the government's responsibility because they are the ones who create the health service and run it (at least in this part of the world).  They don't need to cook our breakfast and all the rest of that simply because we are nearly all capable of doing it ourselves.  We can't all run a health service!  It's the same as other big-ticket items such as defence and education - governments are usually the best people to run the portfolio, although of course there are individuals who are capable of running parts of the system (they're called generals, or school principals).
 

I will agree that we are capable of cooking our own breakfast.  We are also capable of eating healthy and exercising.  We are capable of not smoking.  We are capable of not abusing alchohol.   Does it really make sense that I should pay more taxes because someone else decides to gain a few hundred pounds, smoke like a chimney and get drunk every day.  We make choices and some of those choices may relate to our insurance or health care.  Life can be a gamble.  That can apply to our choice about health and insurance or simply crossing the street. 
 
As far as my comment about my wifes root canal she is more comfortable with her dentist in Russia but either should do a first class job.  The plus would be she could spend a little extra time with her Mom and family.  Still why is a root canal $ 1000.00 here since it is done in the dentist office and takes less than an hour and $ 100.00 there.   Why is a dental implant $ 4000.00 in San Diego and $ 1500.00 across the border in Tiajuana done by doctors with the same equipmment who graduated from the same schools.   
 
BC, I agree, make health care affordable.  It can be done and it can be done with health care professionals still having a good income.  The trouble is Congress is filled with lawyers and politicians.
 
 
 

[BC]

I guess it is safe to say that it is well within the governments interests to provide a host of basic services.  Their main function is to provide a healthy, educated workforce that is able to get to work on time, earn, pay taxes, keep businesses running.

Defense - what's a good workforce if it is simply taken away..
Education - without a doubt one of the driving forces of industry..
Health - for the reasons stated upthread.
Public transportation - to get folks that can't afford two cars to work.
Unemployment - that allows industry flexibility and those receiving pink slips a bridge to new employment.
Retirement - to ensure those too old to work do not end up draining wages of the young workers.
Other social benefits - to keep folks from sleeping on our front lawns and washing in our pools, dumping of elderly kinfolk to be collected from your yard upon their demise.

Without a socialist base, there cannot be capitalistic success.

[Gator]

All of you should pat yourself on the back. 

This interesting thread has expanded with diverse viewpoints and without name calling - very rare for a political thread.  In fact, political discussions are on Dan's "No No" list because they become rancorous.  Maybe our decorum reflects the feeling that the entire Western world faces perhaps it greatest challenge since WWII, and all of us are affected.
 

[Misha]

Universal healthcare has proven benefits, to individuals and society.

Healthier workforce
Lower costs
High quality
Less stress in times of sickness speedier recovery
Less economic stress increased security, dramatically reduced bankruptcies.

 


That sums it up very nicely.

[Turboguy]

I guess it is safe to say that it is well within the governments interests to provide a host of basic services.  Their main function is to provide a healthy, educated workforce that is able to get to work on time, earn, pay taxes, keep businesses running.

Defense - what's a good workforce if it is simply taken away..
Education - without a doubt one of the driving forces of industry..
Health - for the reasons stated upthread.
Public transportation - to get folks that can't afford two cars to work.
Unemployment - that allows industry flexibility and those receiving pink slips a bridge to new employment.
Retirement - to ensure those too old to work do not end up draining wages of the young workers.
Other social benefits - to keep folks from sleeping on our front lawns and washing in our pools, dumping of elderly kinfolk to be collected from your yard upon their demise.

Without a socialist base, there cannot be capitalistic success.

Perhaps or perhaps without a capitalist base there would not have been enough prosperity to have a socialist program.
 
I will agree that "Their main function is to provide a healthy, educated workforce that is able to get to work on time, earn, pay taxes, keep businesses running"
 
Is That happening or are we graduating people with much less real world knowledge then ever before, people who often can't even read and write or speak proper English.  Are we producing healty people or is obesity rampant and far worse then ever before.  Do people pay taxes or is our work ethic eroding and are more lazy people trying to live off those who do work.   Is unemployment a help to those who lost their job or is it a prime motivator of lazyness and the real cause of the high unempolyment rate.   
 
If the government wants to take care of all the important life's matters from cradle to grave is there any individual incentive left?

[Gator]

SF&EE, you raise some interesting questions, yet I believe your questions are more rhetorical than inquisitive. 
 
 

For several pages several of us have been going back and forth about what is a parasite.  Is it a multi-national company that has lobbyists and lawyers (GE) that negotiates no federal tax or an inner city man on welfare who moves in and out of jail for criminal burglary to support a drug habit.

Five points:
 
1.  GE did not negotiate zero tax for 2010.   They complied with US tax law; they had a huge loss carryforward. 
 
2.  GE does make much of its profits from international business; however, surely we want American companies to be on the same playing field as foreign corporations (and some will argue that American companies are already disadvantaged for international trade reasons  cited by Paux Pas.
 
3.  Zero tax did not help,  as GE stock at $16/share is still well below its 2007 high of $40, and still near its 2009 low of $10.
 
4.  Nevertheless, your point confirms that we need tax reform.  Such reform should be based on a comprehensive examination of ALL TAXES rather than a tweak of a few specific taxes.  The latter is the way we have done it for decades, and is why our tax system is a complicated mess.  Tax reform is one of the cornerstones of the Simpson-Bowles fiscal commission's recommendations (which were shelved by Obama even though he appointed the commission).
 
5.  Who is the parasite?  My answer:  the burglar/drug addict.  How do we rid ourselves of such parasites?  Nothing has worked over decades.

[BC]

All of you should pat yourself on the back. 

This interesting thread has expanded with diverse viewpoints and without name calling - very rare for a political thread.  In fact, political discussions are on Dan's "No No" list because they become rancorous.  Maybe our decorum reflects the feeling that the entire Western world faces perhaps it greatest challenge since WWII, and all of us are affected.

Indeed rare. I think a lot has to do with posters here that tend to respect each other despite differences, and are capable of at least listening, which sets the 'tone' and 'tenor'.  Yes it is a topic that affects us all quite deeply and worthy of serious thought.  It might be just a little ol' discussion board but in many ways things I have learned her are passed on in my daily life and am sure others have experienced the same, thus has productive value that reaches far beyond the little logout button.

I'm glad Dan has allowed us to stretch the envelope a bit.

[Muzh]

C'mon Muzh. You are being very dishonest, where did I state the left hates the constitution?



I agree. Both the left and the right. Somehow I notice more of it from the left than anywhere else


More dishonesty Muzh. Where did I say anything even remotely related to what you are attributing to me?




Hates? Where does this strawman end Muzh?

Those are very extreme statements you made there and both completely wrong IMO. I'm not a TP'er and yes they are extreme in their position but the idea is stick to the Constitution. It was/is a ground swell, grassroots party. WHY, does the far left hate it so bad?

Did I misunderstood what you said?
 

FWIW, I don't hate liberals and I do not think Liberals hate the constitution or the USA. I know many, many Liberals and many of those are my good friends. Some of them are even family. I was raised a Democrat but, that Democratic party abandon me years ago. Much in the same way as the Republican party did. I'm not your enemy although I do detect a tone in your last post to me. Why?

You detected wrong. I'm just tired of hearing the same litany why liberals hate this country so much from the other side that I din't find it amusing anymore.
 
From my POV I can easily say why is it that the far right hate poor Americans so much? And before you answer look at some of the posters here regarding IF we should come to a final solution with the (entitled, lazy, parasite) poor.
 
BTW, all through my youth I was a hardcore Republican until Reagan happened. There was a time when Republicans would care for ALL Americans.

[Turboguy]

Personally I think the fact that GE paid no taxes was a little overblown in the news.  I will agree with Gator it was not a negotiated tax.  There is no difference in a company with a tax loss carryforward paying no taxes than there is for an unemployed factory worker doing the same.  There is nothing wrong with using federal programs designed to promote business, spur R & D, promote Green Energy and etc.  Any company that doesn't take advantage of those things is foolish. 
 
To be totally accurate until the recent market drop,  GE was trading over $ 20.00 a share which is well ahead of it's 2009 low and triple it's 2008 low.  Personally it is a company we should be proud of not criticizing.