You Can Have the Red States

Hummm Hybrid-4., I don't get that feeling always ...depends on the parties involved. I will say this, I do like McCain, from his honorable and steafastness, and his forgiving attitudes, he truly does what he preaches. I remember a visit to North Vietnam he had, he was asked to by the White House, and consented. He went there to bolster normalizing trade and relations, and was open to it. Then the NV during the visit showed the world the Hanoi Hilton., and it was full of lies of course. McCain was there, he controlled himself, then just turned to his aide and said, just get me back to my plane, I am leaving. He made no issue, and no statement, he just departed quietly and let the rest of the delegation handle the policy desired by the Administration at that time. I TRULY admired this man, since then, and still do today. Knowing what took place over there, and the NV did not even have the good taste to at least somehow exclude him from that part of the visit was just beyond me..under the circumstances. I don't think the Republicans have fooled me that much, rather I can count more on the other side that have disappointed me and fooled me. I vote by each candidate or man or woman, based on their conduct and public record, and behaviors and morality. I always liked Joe Lieberman.

 

I too like quite a few Republicans, but I would generally not vote for them anymore because they are too loyal to the party leaders. And right now, I think the Republican party leaders are extremely in favor of the corporations right now.

Thus, I see some Repuplicans voting for things that I don't think they really believe in. But they vote that way because that is what the leadership wants them to do.

If the Republican party moved a little to closer to the middle, I'd be more inclined to consider "picking and choosing" on a case by case basis.

But the way things are now, from my perspective, any vote for any Republican for congress, is a vote for the agenda of Cheney, Bush, Tom Delay and Bill Frist. And I know you don't like it when I say this, but I really feel that Bush has made a mess of the war on terror, and because of that mess, Americans are less safe.

And the Republican party has for the last 25 years, and especially the last 5, has been giving the USA to the corporations. This is going to come back to bite us in the a**.

McCain lost some of his "shine" from me because I think he let Bush get away with things that I'm sure McCain doesn't believe in. But I still have a lot of respect for him and have not rejected the idea of voting for him for President.

But if going into 2008, the Republicans still own the House and the Senate, I'd find it hard to consider McCain. That would just be too much power in a politcal party that I feel is not good for America's future.

Time for bed. Talk soon.

 

It was great to come back to this thread this morning and see such a long and lively debate. Outstanding points were made on both sides, it seems to me. Predictably, I don't see evidence of anyone changing their mind, including me. The shift of the tax burden mentioned by Jayman sounded like what has happened here in the last few years as Prius04 pointed out. Differences and similarities abound. But regardless of all the points made, this remains a moral issue to me. It is sad that the Godless societies like the former Soviet Union and the present Cuba are more moral than we are on this issue. In all the rhetoric above, nobody debates the moral issue. Maybe that is just as well.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04\";p=\"105575)</div>

Unfortunately, the "burden" is borne almost entirely by the working middle class in Canada.

That's the reason why large corporations are so willing to locate to Canada - well, at least to the Greater Toronto Area or Montreal. Many Federal acronyms (HRDC, EDC, IC, etc) willingly give away money that, in the vast majority of cases, is not subject to audit or even disclosure. Less than 5% is ever repaid, in the case of IC.

Many taxpayer groups here in Canada have come under RCMP and even CSIS (Canadian Security and Intelligence Service, sort of like the FBI, CIA, and NSA combined) investigation for making ATIA (Access To Information Act, similar to FOIA in the United States) requests about the level of corporate welfare here in Canada. Legally, the many Federal acronyms don't have to disclose the level of corporate welfare, for example to the automotive industry.

Many taxpayer groups - working with what little sources they have and also former disgruntled Public Service employees - estimate the automotive industry has received over $50 billion taxpayer dollars in Ontario. Of course the automotive industry doesn't have to disclose that either, it's just a bonus for them.

So as far as "spreading the wealth" or making it more "fair" it should be apparent that the average working Canadian has it much worse than the average working American. The proportion of "free" money to large corporations is far higher in Canada.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04\";p=\"105575)</div>

There are many Federal acronyms - such as HRDC - and Provincial acronyms that already provide "free" training for employers. All a large corporation has to do is float the idea of hiring extra workers, or in the case of GM just hinting they may layoff if they don't receive the money, and they magically receive the money.

This has caused some heated debate:

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/05/25/canad...da/health040525

http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publication...ns/June2000.htm

http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/chambus...n009_1635-e.htm

http://www.torontofreepress.com/2005/klaus050205.htm

Again, the company doesn't have to legally disclose all the "free" taxpayer money it receives for "training."

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04\";p=\"105575)</div>

I do find it highly amusing and certainly ironic that Americans confuse Liberal with "liberal."

It's also highly suspicious that former PM Jean Chretien - a lifetime civil servant - should be so wealthy. I always thought civil servants weren't paid enough, at least they always complain about it. Yet the guy lives in a $4 million home that was paid cash. Hmmmm.

And former Finance Minister Paul Martin, now PM, is almost a billionaire - far wealthier than Bush or Cheney. Probably wealthier than Bush/Cheney combined. Martin ran CSL (Canada Steamship Lines):

http://paulmartintime.ca/story/000025.html


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04\";p=\"105575)</div>

I think we've had this discussion before, and I'm still amazed that most Americans haven't figured it out yet.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04\";p=\"105575)</div>

The many hidden freebies are a very big part of the equation.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04\";p=\"105575)</div>

Oh boy I'm not even going to get into that one past my ankles. All I can suggest is that more skilled workers have found better employment in the United States, so manufacturing positions must be filled by folks who are .... um .... "less" qualified.

I know folks from Alabama and they all have B.Sc. or higher. The drawl is endearing after awhile too.

Canada may have a more highly skilled workforce, but ironically that highly skilled workforce is chronically underemployed. Wages are often much lower than the United States. This creates the "Brain Drain" I referenced in the previous post.

For example, a local company recently advertised for a DBA with B.Sc., minimum 7 years experience, Oracle Certified, etc. Salary of $30,000 Cdn and they claim to have had in excess of 1,500 applicants.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04\";p=\"105575)</div>

I thought you were AGAINST taking the burden off large corporations??

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04\";p=\"105575)</div>

Many Canadians have never been to the U.S. let alone lived there, so have no basis for comparison. They also listen to CBC too much, and naturally believe everything CBC blabs.

My parents are often amused to have some of their local friends express shock about the "cost" of American health care, then complain about waiting 18 months to get an "urgent" MRI. All their friends have to do is drive 2 hours south to North Dakota, fork over $2,800 Cdn (They can afford it), and get an MRI.

Whenever anything serious happens with my folks, I drive or fly them down to the Twin Cities or Rochester, MN. They both get Social Security and paid into Medicare since they started receiving SS.

Anyhoo there are always two sides to every issue and hopefully a lot of misinformed Americans will begin to understand that some countries provide Corporate Welfare at even higher levels.

 

jayman: If you make the assumption that one shuold not model a system after the Canadian system, just how should you set one up? That question is made with the further assumption that there is a desire to cover everyone with a health care system that carries as few flaws as possible.

 

Fred:

That's a good question! I personally do not have the foggiest idea, and I'm honest enough to admit that. So I'd never be a politician.

Any "solution" would need careful study and require a lot of planning. The results of such a study would also have to be public so nosey folks like moi could run statistical diagnostics (ANOVA, F&T, Weibull, Monte Carlo, etc) to independently verify the results.

As evidenced in both the U.S. and Canada, throwing money at the problem doesn't solve it.

Jay

 

Totally agree.

 

jayman: I offer this article from the Christian Science Monitor. It backs up much of what you said and points out that the mixed private and government systems of Europe and Australia work quite nicely.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0706/p09s01-coop.html

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IALTMANN\";p=\"105572)</div>

This is kind of a scary point for the average citizen to think about. But it's been heavily discussed in the biotech/insurance fields too with the advent of such things as genetic testing.

The question is, do you get the test and get preventive treatment for a disease that may run in your family (provided this can not be figured out by some elaborate family tree analysis and a little knowledge of how the gene behaves) only to be dropped from your insurance company if they find you're also susceptible to other life-threatening diseases? How about life insurance?

There have been regulations keeping insurance companies from knowing the results of such genetic tests, but it could be just a matter of time before big business finds yet another way to screw over Average Joe and his family if the rules are relaxed.

Smokers are usually not covered under insurance here if they want help quitting.

Since cancer is a direct threat to life that's a scarier issue. I don't think you can get away with treating citizens like farm animals in the respect that they will only be treated if they have a "productive" life left. Plus, it's asking for a huge lawsuit since in some cases it's very hard to determine what exactly caused the cancer. Was it secondhand smoke, firsthand smoke, air pollution, something you worked with? We all go around inhaling tons of stuff every day that can cause lung cancer with a high enough dose. I work with chemicals all the time. I don't doubt that in my quest to help others I will do some harm to myself along the way...

The others also have their debatable points. Obesity has genetic links which are still being evaluated. STDs have their own realm of discussion.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jayman\";p=\"105637)</div>

So it sounds like both countries are in a "race to the bottom". As you point out, there has been tons of corporate welfare to get companies into Canada, presumable to provide jobs, yet Canada still has chronic underemployment. I guess the factories move to Canada until the subsidies are used up, then move to the town that offers the next best deal. This happens all across America, and the World. And this movement preceded NAFTA, though it accelerated with it.

That's why my answer to this is to have more societal control over what corporations can do, and not less. There are various ways to provide that control and each have there own deficits. Unions can provide that control in a way, but they can become corrupt. Government can provide that control, but this too is filled with problems. And if local government provides to much control, the corporation will just move to another stare or province. Thus the need for increased federal control.

So I don't have a clear answer that would be "perfect". But I do know that as corporations get more and more free to do what they want, and this is exactly what the Republicans have been doing, the citizenry is worse and worse off. This is laissez faire and I'm against it.

On the other hand, I think a free market is wonderful. But only if it is really free, and now in America, we have so many megacorporations that we now have real monopolies. There cannot be a free market with monopolies. (And although GM has Ford and Toyota to deal with and this makes it look like they are not a monopoly, the level of control they exert over the marketplace is certainly monopolist in it's affect. I'm not advocated a break up, but only more oversight and less laissez faire.)

So I don't know what the solution is, but I think this planet was making better progress towards it, ever so slow and inexorably, when the "liberal" principles that used to be the hallmark of the Democrats was the predominant political and economic model. And now we are either stagnant, or regressing.

And in my opinion, that "liberal" model has not REALLY been in charge since around 1980, regardless of who owned the Senate or White House.

And by the way, I still believe in the principles of NAFTA. Free trade turned South Korea from a 3rd world country into a country with a thriving middle class in only 75 years!!!. (And this is the only way to truly end world terrorism by the way.) So free trade works. However, you can't export only 1/2 of the free trade concept. In other words, you can't just export the rights of the corporations to build factories where they want, without ALSO exporting the rights of workers. Because when you do that, you put all "regular" people in a race to compete with the poorest of the poor for jobs.

And it has been the weakening of the rights or workers -- vis a vis the corporations -- that has resulted in our respective countries "race to the bottom". And as long as "supply side economics" remains the central way we do business, expect the economic condition of the working man to continue to deteriorate. In both our countries.

This is my take on the world, and it is VERY rough around the edges. And this is why I generally won't vote for Republicans anymore. We all need to get back to empowering the masses of people in our respective countries and lay off empowering the corporations and rich.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fredatgolf\";p=\"105661)</div>

Fred:

Good url. Much like what was done in Sweden, where there is still a Single Source of funds (Government/taxpayer) but a mixture of public/private health care. They claim it works well.

However, I suspect every government out there claims a particular program works well. The last thing a politician or government department will admit to is a serious fubar.

Like MP's here who land a Cabinet position - they refer to it as a "portfolio" - and listening to them you'd think they invented gravity, oxygen, and the atom. Self-serving claptrap.

So I would like to see a lot more opinions and input from the Average Swede, Average Canadian, Average American, etc etc.

And I would still like to see the raw or non-studentized data so nosey folks like me could independently run statistical diagnostics and check for odd things like heteroscedasticity (Unequal variance and autocorrelation).

Jay

 

Prius04: If you had government competing against the private sector, wouldn't that carry within forces that would improve both?
jayman: I guess we need nosey folk.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee\";p=\"105669)</div>

Geez that's a tough one to call.

On the one hand, we have little control over how the genetic dice are rolled. For example, my Dad's side of the family has a history of heart trouble, most often a gimpy Mitral valve.

My Dad was born with it and for most of his life it didn't seem to cause him any trouble. Now that he's 85, he is starting to get severe Mitral valve prolapse. He doesn't want anything done and doesn't worry about it.

Around 14 years ago I took part in a University of Utah Health Sciences study on heart disease risk in families. Got the entire routine, MRI and ultrasound with very nifty medical gadgets from Hewlett Packard, GE, and Siemens.

Apparently, I also have a suspicious Mitral valve but at the moment it's working ok. So I have it carefully monitored.

On the other hand, what if "routine" genetic screening will be required for all prospective parents, or even for any female who is pregnant? Say some bastard of a bean counter determines that Mitral valve prolapse will "cost" society too much and as a result they order the fetus terminated.

You know, a combination of Shop Vac and Roto Rooter. End of the "problem," right? Though at what point does the Government have the "right" to make these life and death decisions?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee\";p=\"105669)</div>

Even murkier to debate.

On the one hand, a person who willingly and with full intent sucks down 2-3 packs a day, especially after the real health effects became apparent 15-20 years ago, probably isn't the sort of person who is "worth" saving. Probably not even worth the CAT procedures that may provide early detection of lung cancer, though also zapping a lot of radiation that could also cause cancer.

On the other hand, it's not just Marlboro cigarettes that cause lung cancer. Has the home been tested for Radon? That is turning into a HUGE issue.

When I had my home in the Burbs built around 5 years ago, I insisted they put a vented sump system in. A separate vent line was run to the roof that was equipped with a low-velocity inline blower. So the entire drain tile system had constant ventilation to prevent Radon in the home.

My hobby farm home was built the same way. I'm actually obsessive about this, I even put MERV 12 filters on the HRV intake and have HEPA filters in the air duct return in the home.

So at what point do we make the distinction between a "natural" mortality and one that can be easily prevented? What a can of worms.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fredatgolf\";p=\"105698)</div>

I think a combined public and private approach to Universal health care would be a good approach. Did anyone here actually read the plan put forth by the group led by Hillary Clinton? Or did you all succumb to the propaganda that was subsidized by the pharma and insurance lobby? I read that plan, and I read analysis of that plan by brilliant people, and that plan was a combo public private plan. But it had language that would probably have interfered with profits for some megacorporations, so a well funded propaganda effort was put forth to kill it.

And I do not pretend that it was perfect, but it was certainly a step in the right direction, it was affordable with all kinds of cost control items, and from my read, it looked like it quite significantly preserved the free market in health care. Though with some constraints. But those contraints were mainly on the megacorporations. Hence the successful propaganda campaign. That plan is ridiculed even today, by people who have no idea what it contained.



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fredatgolf\";p=\"105698)</div>

I think transparency is essential in a free society. Thus I think it imperative for Americans to know that the GW administration has nearly tripled the labeling of government documents as "classified". It's been called the most secretive administration in history.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04\";p=\"105705)</div>

I think a combined public and private approach to Universal health care would be a good approach. Did anyone here actually read the plan put forth by the group led by Hillary Clinton? Or did you all succumb to the propaganda that was subsidized by the pharma and insurance lobby? I read that plan, and I read analysis of that plan by brilliant people, and that plan was a combo public private plan. But it had language that would probably have interfered with profits for some megacorporations, so a well funded propaganda effort was put forth to kill it.
[/b][/quote] I did not read it but I read an awful lot about it and agree with your assessment.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jayman\";p=\"105703)</div>

This, well in a less extremist form, has been addressed years ago. I'm sure you've heard of the eugenics movement and the harsh criticism that has since been piled upon it by modern-day scientists.

There are related issues that continue to be debated by geneticists everywhere. Half of my advanced human genetics class in college was studying common gene product faults causing birth defects, the other half was debate over policy. Fantastic class, brilliant professor.

And not to bring in politics too much here, but let's face it. Here in the US there's a huge pro-life sector that would riot over something like this.

Scary thought though. The thought of putting cost to society over the value of the diversity of humanity is a real nightmare. I hope it never comes to that.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04\";p=\"105693)</div>

If many folks benefited, then *maybe* it might be worth it.

As it stands, a handful benefit and everybody else loses. The best example of that was the recent Sponsorship Scandal, where Liberal-friendly advertising firms - most of them in Quebec - lined up at the taxpayer trough to get money.

The premise was almost laughably simple: convince every Canadian, especially those in Quebec, that Quebec should remain part of Canada.

Huh?

Like where would they go? Use enormous jacks to lift up the entire Province and float it across the Atlantic to France??

We still haven't heard the "real" number on how much was spent on AdScam: at least a quarter billion perhaps slightly over a billion. Less than 5% appears to have actually been spent on advertising of any sort.

Now we have GM whining in Ontario that if they don't get *more* free money, for "training" (Already free under HRDC) and "infrastructure" (Already free under the Federal/Provincial "Infrastructure Works" program), they will have no choice but to lay off over 400.

The last thing on anybody's mind when discussing various government schemes is the Accountability. Big Gov is like Big Biz: the less the people know, the better, at least as far as they are concerned.

Out of curiosity, if an American citizen tries to get nosey about a large corporation by looking at SEC filings, will the FBI or NSA investigate them?

Folks here that investigated the $65 million that EDC invested in CTR (Chile Telefonica Rural), by making ATIA requests, were investigated by both the RCMP and CSIS.

The same folks who tried to find out how much Bell Canada put into Bell Canada International (Tens of billions invested into foreign third-world telephone co's, went belly up several years ago) at the same time Bell Canada was whining about "foreign competition" in Canada and needing more taxpayer money, were also investigated but much more thoroughly by the RCMP and CSIS.

What worries me is the implied threat that once you get nosey about a large corp or a government department, they will look into every little detail of your entire life. You're a bigger "threat" than the many terrorist groups legally operating in Canada.

Has this happened yet in the United States? Just curious if the current administration is copying what has been SOP in Canada the past 15 years.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fredatgolf\";p=\"105698)</div>

Fred:

Even harder to believe - this is true though - is that I confine my nosey attitude to gov and corporations. Average folk have little if anything to fear from my nosey attitude.

Jay

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04\";p=\"105705)</div>

Yep but that was a long time ago. It was a step in the right direction and at least it started debate.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04\";p=\"105705)</div>

I have no problem with classifying documents that pertain to national security or protecting the public.

For instance, I really don't see why things like the gaseous diffusion process - Uranium Hexaflouride - should be a Public Domain document. Nor do I have to know how the ICBM launch codes are seeded to back-calculate them. Nor do I have to know how a hydrogen bomb is fused to provide One Point safety.

It's worrisome when secrecy is applied to a budget process or how to cover up health disasters or environmental disasters.

Here in Canada, despite the ATIA (Access To Information Act) the Parliament and especially the PMO (Prime Minister's Office) is especially secretive.

Like the Canada Red Cross scandal involving AIDS and Hep B/C. That was covered up for a long time.

Even simple things are veiled in secrecy. If a citizen does finally get minutes for cabinet meetings, entire pages are blacked out. More often than not, the blacked out pages refer to funding or paper trails.

As a good example, it took the public almost a decade to find out how the Canadian taxpayer was going to pay for virtually 100% of Romania's "purchase" of CANDU nuclear power reactors. AECL (Atomic Energy Canada Ltd) routinely slapped a gag on any press release citing "trade secrets."

The "trade secret" was that AECL was robbing Peter to help pay Paul. It was a giant Ponzi Scheme. Check out:

http://www.ccnr.org

So I share your concern that in the name of "homeland security" we're slapping secrecy on what should be Public Domain documents.

Jay

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jayman\";p=\"105717)</div>

I think both Fred and I understood what you meant, and knew that your next door neighbors need not fret.