I watched the exchange between Chris Matthews and William Kostric (the guy who showed up along the route to Obama's New Hampshire town hall meeting carrying a loaded a gun and a sign referring to how the "Tree of Liberty" needs to be "watered" either with the blood of patriots or a tyrant).
Matthews is, I believe, a complete air-head (he'll back somebody for president because he thinks they smell great and he mocks opponents of the invasion of Iraq while simultaneously condemning same invasion) but he did say something valid about Kostric's gun antics. Given the tragic history of presidential assasinations in the USA, what the hell did Kostric think he was doing showing up with a loaded gun?
Kostric was too gutless to admit that he was attempting some low-level political intimidation and pretty much weaselled-out of any explanation. On the other hand, Kostric did show evidence of political worldview that appears to be a lot more sophisticated and internally consistent than anything Matthews would be able to cook up.
He's a Ron Paul Republican, who believes in tiny government. He believes in the right to bear arms. He believes that the creation of the Federal Reserve was a power grab by the "money power" of Wall Street, and he no doubt opposes wars of imperialism and standing-armies in general. I'd be interested to know where he was during the bush II years!
Now here's the thing though. Ron Paul panders to racists and I wouldn't doubt if he saw eye-to-eye with them. More, Ron Paul and all those right-wing libertarians are just really, really wrong. The economy that they imagine works best is one that never really existed, except perhaps for a few decades in the early 19th-Century in parts of Britain and the United States. The radical free market of small producers with equal (non-existent) power to influence markets and with all having perfect information is just a masturbatory fantasy of Von Mises, Hayek and Milton Friedman. In its partial application it produced calamaties just as easily as it produced econcomic growth.
In the real world, leftists, liberals, conservatives, pretty much everyone else, has accepted the need for some regulation of the money supply, for the creation of permanent institutions to perform necessary tasks and, finally, of the need for a public sector to provide necessary services and to regulate private actors. To take on the opinions of right-wing libertarians in their totality would be extremely delusional.
And one of thier biggest delusions is the notion that pooling society's money collectively and providing healthcare for all is a dangerous and intolerable assault on individual freedom. According to these ideologues, Canadians, with our public healthcare system, are suffering under the cruel yoke of Stalinist oppression (and we're too brainwashed by our public education system to even realize it!!!). Supposedly you're only truly free when you pay for whatever medical care you can afford out of your own pocket. (Remember, these libertarians are opposed to big corporations so insurance companies would have to be much smaller -- dangerously small -- to be allowed into their pristine worldview.) According to thinkers like Milton Friedman, there should be no regulations on medicine at all. There should be no barriers to practising medicine for anyone. Let the market decide. Obviously in such a world, there would be good scientific care for the wealthy and [privately] educated and homemade nostrums and potions sold from travelling medicine shows for everyone else. Slightly better to people like Friedman, Kostric and Ron Paul, is the US-American healthcare system, wherein people's lives are valued according to the strength of their insurance policies and family wealth, and where profit-driven bureaucrats get to interfere with the level of care you receive. (In such a system, employer health plans are the barrier between you and medical bankruptcy which makes you ever so willing to assert your individualism in the workplace!) Canada's system, where you pay your taxes and then, if you get sick or injured, see a doctor and get looked after, is simply a nightmare of totalitarianism.
Last thing for today: Most studies show that the average Canadian enjoys the same level of disposable income as the average US-American. We pay a bit more in taxes than they do and they pay more out-of-pocket for health insurance, education and other services that Canadians pay for with their taxes. It's pretty much a wash. Except for the fact that there's much more inequality in the USA than is revealed by those averages. In the case of healthcare, 50 million USians have no health insurance while millions more have inadequate insurance.
ETA: In case anyone's interested, here's a very accessible telling of the debate over socialism versus the free market in the Saskatchewan medicare fight.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
36 comments:
Your info re taxes is way out of date, dude. The top individual income tax rate is 35%, not 39.6.
And the other marginal tax rates are different as well:
10% on the income between $0 and $16,050
15% on the income between $16,050 and $65,100; plus $1,605.00
25% on the income between $65,100 and $131,450; plus $8,962.50
28% on the income between $131,450 and $200,300; plus $25,550.00
33% on the income between $200,300 and $357,700; plus $44,828.00
35% on the income over $357,700; plus $96,770.00
(Source - married filing joint: http://taxes.about.com/od/2008taxes/qt/2008_tax_rates.htm)
Further, when you add in Provincial/state/local income taxes, Canadian GST, etc., the tax differences grow -- in America's favor.
On top of that, you cannot ignore the latest per capita GDP numbers are:
Canada: US$39,300 (2008)
United States of America: US$47,000 (2008)
(Source: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html)
So, your claim about "most studies" showing the "same level of disposible income" between the two nations is wrong.
Plus, you are engaged in a losing battle regarding disposible income in socialist countries versus capitalistic ones. The more the markets are free, the richer they are. Look at the US vs. Cuba. Or Canada vs. North Korea.
You, Thwapy are a communist -- pardon me, "anarchist" (whatever THAT silly term means). People like you always lead to Stalinism/Hitlerism/Maoism/Castroism/Leninism. You don't want a Canadian or Swedish style system. You want purity.
Douchebag the Dim said:
"The more the markets are free, the richer they are."
Markets as collectivities of individuals can be more or less rich, but markets don't need to pay for food, overhead, clothing, health-care, etc. By your reckoning, Douche, one man with a worth of, say, $10K, in a market with 100 men who each only have 100$ to their names, makes for a rich market. Unfortunately, it also makes for a lot of poor people. Is that what you want?
"People like you always lead to Stalinism/Hitlerism/Maoism/Castroism/Leninism."
You really don't know your history, do you? You just mouth phrases.
BTW, I'm a communist (don't know your poli-sci either, eh?).
Dooshbag,
Let's get this out of the way ...
"You, Thwapy are a communist -- pardon me, "anarchist" (whatever THAT silly term means). People like you always lead to Stalinism/Hitlerism/Maoism/Castroism/Leninism. You don't want a Canadian or Swedish style system. You want purity."
Thanks for the assertions about my politics. You'll excuse me for not giving a shit.
On to the weightier part of your comments ...
We could go back and forth on this, ... after taxes, after deducting for healthcare and education expenses, after government transfers, the average Canadian and the average USian comes out about the same.
"On top of that, you cannot ignore the latest per capita GDP numbers are:
Canada: US$39,300 (2008)
United States of America: US$47,000 (2008)"
Per capita GDP is derived from taking the GDP and dividing it among the population. Obviously, a lot of inequality can be masked in such a procedure.
Let's look at median household incomes in the USA and Canada ...
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2006-08-29-poverty-rate_x.htm
"Median household income climbed 1.1% to $46,326 in 2005. That means half of U.S. households earned more and half earned less."
whereas for Canada:
http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/products/analytic/companion/inc/subprovs.cfm
"With the exception of Trois-Rivieres ($47,571) and Sherbrooke ($48,969), median family income was above $50,000 in all of Canada’s 27 large urban areas."
As you can see, the well-being of the average Canadian is similar to that of the average USian.
Furthermore,
The United States has an enormous internal market of 300 million people. It's blessed with abundant arable land, mineral and other natural resources. And it was, for a time, the most democratic country on the face of the earth.
With all those benefits it's no surprise that it became the richest country in the world. My concern is that imbeciles such as yourself, mouthing platitudes about "free markets" and ignoring historical peculiarities, are going to run your country into the ground.
It's amusing how you are so shamelessly quick to forget realities even after they've smashed you in the face. The Bi-Partisan deregulation of the US financial system created a market with no rules other than "buyer beware." Well, buyers didn't beware, and regulators didn't regulate, and financial firms took advantage of their option to NOT self-regulate and they damned near destroyed the world financial system until they were bailed-out by the tax-payers.
Of course, there are imbeciles who imagine that the bad loans given out to poor people who couldn't afford them could somehow account for a disaster of this magnitude.
But you're not one of those stupid idiots are you?
More reading:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/08/14-6
Nice guy, Thwap. Good use of invective.
"As you can see, the well-being of the average Canadian is similar to that of the average USian."
Holy statistics fail, Batman! You are comparing mean income in Canada's 27 largest urban urban areas to the US overall, and then drawing a conclusion on such bogus-ness. How about comparing it to the largest urban areas of the US instead, or are you completely ignorant ... or are you just plain dishonest? Everyone knows that urban areas have larger incomes than non-urban areas. Do you?
Really, Thwap, your nastiness and partisan dishonesty knows no bounds.
Question, Thwap, are you a communist or anarchist? And, if you are an anarchist, you invective spewing liar, what does that mean regarding your economic policy views?
"You really don't know your history, do you? You just mouth phrases." -- Ttodd"
What else do people "mouth" but phrases, commie?
Geez, what a tool.
As for history, I know a lot. You, however, clearly don't.
Further, Thwap, looking at the median rather than the mean, doesn't change the fact that US incomes are higher. Also, in case you forgot, your entire point is that "the *average* [emphasis added] Canadian enjoys the same level of disposable income as the average US-American [sic]. If Canada were a US state, it would be among the poorest, if not the poorest.
Plus, you seem to forget that in the US just about every good is cheaper than in Canada. You mentioned the expense of US heathcare, but this is but one item. Besides, in a single payer, government run system, costs are hard, if not impossible, to measure. Plus, you ignore Canadian healthcare rationing. This is a cost that is definitely NOT measured.
Have you been to America recently? Did you buy anything? You should get out more often.
Douche the Dim said:
"What else do people 'mouth' but phrases, commie?"
They usually also understand what they mean.
I don't think you do, Sonny.
"As for history, I know a lot. You, however, clearly don't."
I wouldn't put this list:
Stalinism/Hitlerism/Maoism/Castroism/Leninism
together to make a point about my smarts if I knew fascists oppose communism (always have).
"Plus, you seem to forget that in the US just about every good is cheaper than in Canada."
Exchange rate?
"Besides, in a single payer, government run system, costs are hard, if not impossible, to measure."
Oh, cry me a river. StatsCan works fine.
"Plus, you ignore Canadian healthcare rationing."
??
What in the world does this mean?
"Have you been to America recently?"
No. So?
"Did you buy anything?"
Again: so?
"You should get out more often."
This, from someone flaming and trolling a blog for the past two entries? Something tells me your pic's just a dream . . . .
Pot, kettle, black.
Todd,
You are without a doubt the biggest fool I have come across this week. You are denser than thwap ... and that's saying something.
No, I "don't understand what you mean," Todddd, when you say something as silly as, "You just mouth phrases," if you are trying to tell me that you mean anything other than its clear meaning ... which is: You say phrases. Why don't you enlighten me as to your true meaning in this case, Wordsworth?
"Exchange rate"?
What is this supposed to "mean," Todd? That you have no idea what the hell you're talking about? That you missed that one day in economics class? So convert $US39,300 and $US47,000 to Canadian dollars, Todd. You get the same spread ... just expressed in loonies, retard. Why don't you multiply the two numbers by the exchange rate and tell me what you get, Milton Friedman? Exchange rate differences!
"Fascists always oppose communists," says our history expert, forgetting their similar socialist economic policies, their similar history of support from progressives, and their common totalitarian proclivities. Are you confusing your hero Stalin's propensity to call any leftist he didn't like a fascist? Why, yes, yes you are, history genius.
And THEN, in response to my clear question, "Have you been to America recently?" you ask, "What in the world does this mean?"
It means dimwit, "Have you been to America recently?" How can I be clearer, TODDDDDD? Please, tell me.
Mr. Dimwit,
Sigh.
I was looking for some quick links and figured that since the vast majority of Canadians live in urban areas, that that statistic on median household income would do.
Since you're trying to make it out that I'm trying to pull a fast one on you, and since you are going to the trouble of debating me with actual facts, I found this one:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080505/family_income_080505/20080505?hub=TopStories
"Median income in 2006, after taxes, was $58,300 -- an increase of 2.1 per cent from the previous year."
Which we again compare to my earlier source for the USA's median household income ...
"Median household income climbed 1.1% to $46,326 in 2005. That means half of U.S. households earned more and half earned less."
Now, admittedly, my Canada stat is for 2007 and my USA stat is from 2005, so if you can find something for the USA from 2007, go nuts.
At the end of the day, I'm perfectly willing to concede that the USA has a higher per capita income than does Canada. For all the reasons I stated above.
My point, in case you've lost it in your general asshole-ish-ness, is that so far as our higher tax rates and larger public sector go, Canadians (and citizens of European social democracies) enjoy similar and sometimes superior indicators than do US citizens.
We are not groaning under the yoke of Stalinist governments. (In fact, your inability to differentiate between Stalinism and social democracy is indicative of your stunted political culture.)
With regards to healthcare, your country would do well to switch from its bloated, inefficient, inhuman profit-driven monstrosity, to something like the Canadian single-payer model.
Unless, that is, you enjoy sentencing millions of your fellow citizens to bankruptcy, poverty or an early death the same way you like to consign your soldiery to their deaths in useless wars?
Douche the Dim said:
"Why don't you enlighten me as to your true meaning in this case, Wordsworth?"
Ohh, a big boy like you can figure it out, I'm sure.
(You've managed opposable thumbs so far . . . .)
"That you have no idea what the hell you're talking about?"
Genius frothed earlier:
"you seem to forget that in the US just about every good is cheaper than in Canada."
Naturally, the first thing that comes to mind as a reason for this is Canada's exchange rate with the US. Were you trying to point out something else? You didn't do a very good job of it (naturally).
"their similar socialist economic policies"
Curious. I don't recall reading anywhere that fascists would take away ownership of the means of production from the bourgeois and hand it over to workers (except at the _very_ beginning of fascist political organization in Germany, when they were more brazenly trying to steal bodies from the communists by trying to sound like them). They left ownership still in the bosses' hands. That would make them allies to the owners, right?
"their similar history of support from progressives"
I think you mean liberals. There's a difference.
"Are you confusing your hero Stalin's propensity to call any leftist he didn't like a fascist?"
Again, if you knew history, you'd know Stalin wasn't the hero of every communist.
And I see your problem: you confuse hype for reality, surfaces for depth. Don't worry: this level of ignorance and gullibility is normal for most of the masses (you know, poeple like you). You just don't know any better. More grist for the revolutionary mill . . . .
"And THEN, in response to my clear question, 'Have you been to America recently?' you ask, 'What in the world does this mean?'"
Actually, fucktard, if you'd been able to read past the spittle on your screen, you'd have seen that I answered your clear question; my question was referring to your odd use of the word "rationing".
You're not very good at this, are you?
You know,"todd" and you thwap might actually make some headway if you weren't complete dicks to everyone who doesn't agree with you.(ie.nearly everyone)I realize it's an uphill climb but,if you tried to act more humane(you remember humans don't you?You used to be one.)people might take what you have to say in the spirit in which it's intended(ie.seriously)instead of as comedy.
vin,
The other day, you said the following:
"Nice try twack,but the only embarassment here is your blog.It's quite rare to see this amount of bullshite all in one place.Yet here your blog sits like a steaming pile.How is that you can be so completly wrong in nearly everyway possible.That's quite an accomplishment.One would think that by blind,stupid,dumb luck you'd be right about something/anything at least once in awhile but no, you don't even have that going your way.Just another pompous pud looking for something to say.The fact that you take yourself so seriously is the real kicker .It's fantastic to see someone so absolutely sure of their own correctness in spite of everyday reason and common sense. battle.It wouldn't be so bad but your drivel is so stale.Can't you at least update it?"
And now you're typing this drivel about how nasty us lefties are?
I was so inspired by your shitty attempt at criticism that I typed a response to all further such garbage from you or your ilk:
http://thwapschoolyard.blogspot.com/2009/08/wanted-better-grade-of-troll.html
I used that crapola of yours that I quoted above in it and I wrote the following:
"Notice that there's nothing in there specifically pertaining to anything I've actually said or done. It's just a string of insulting words that could be applied to anyone. Why should I care about this paragraph of insults? How could I feel embarrassed about how my writing inspires such bile when there's absolutely nothing in there to tie to my writing? Why should I feel sad or angry that somebody with the pseudonym "vin" or someone anonymous wrote this string of meaningless words? Why should I even care?
...
One would have to be an absolute idiot to imagine that I, or anyone else, would be at all affected by those words."
So, now that you've received that link to my standard response to empty commentary such as yours, you are hereby on notice: Use your fucking brain and actually DEBATE or fuck the hell off.
Any further attempts to post empty snark will be deleted.
Thwap,
Are you denying that you are a nasty piece of work?
Odd Todd,
You are ranting. I cannot read your incoherent garbage. Care to try again?
Thwap,
Instead of suggesting *I* seek out compartive statistics (which you don't seem to be able to find) to prove *your* unproven point, *I* suggest *you* do your own work to prove *your* point. Until then, I'll keep relying on my evidence, which is directly comparitive. I'm not the one attempting to compare apples to oranges (or fresh apples to two-year-old apples, if you prefer) and use that to conclude that there is no difference between the two.
Thank you.
Doosh,
You're yammering now. You've revealed yourself to be a mental midget. You don't have to try to drum the point home.
Another empty comment like that and you're gone too.
Yeah, Thwap, I can see why you'd want to delete me; I told you to do your own work. I can see why you'd call me a mental midget, too.
Thwap, go to hell.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
Comparison of 30 OECD countries for 2008 :
US :
The United States is the country with the highest inequality level and poverty rate across the OECD, Mexico and Turkey excepted. Since 2000, income inequality has increased rapidly, continuing a long-term trend that goes back to the 1970s.
Rich households in America have been leaving both middle and poorer income groups behind.
This has happened in many countries, but nowhere has this trend been so stark as in the United States. The average income of the richest 10% is US$93,000US$ in purchasing power parities, the highest level in the OECD. However, the poorest 10% of the US citizens have an income of US$5,800 US$ per year – about 20% lower than the average for OECD countries.
The distribution of earnings widened by 20% since the mid-1980s which is more than in most other OECD countries. This is the main reason for widening inequality in America.
Redistribution of income by government plays a relatively minor role in the United States. Only in Korea is the effect smaller. This is partly because the level of spending on social benefits such as unemployment benefits and family benefits is low – equivalent to just 9% of household incomes, while the OECD average is 22%. The effectiveness of taxes and transfers in reducing
inequality has fallen still further in the past 10 years.
Social mobility is lower in the United States than in other countries like Denmark, Sweden and
Australia. Children of poor parents are less likely to become rich than children of rich parents.
Wealth is distributed much more unequally than income: the top 1%control some 25-33% of total net worth and the top 10% hold 71%. For comparison, the top 10% have 28% of total income.
Canada :
In the last 10 years, the rich have been getting richer leaving both middle and poorer income classes behind. The rich in Canada are particularly rich compared to their counterparts in other countries – the average income of the richest 10% is US$ 71,000 in purchasing power parities, which is one third above the OECD average of US$54,000. The poor and the middle classes are also richer than the OECD average, but by less -- their average incomes are only 18% above that of their counterparts in a typical OECD country.
Over the past 10 years poverty (meaning people who live on less than half median incomes)has increased for all age groups, by around 2 to 3 percentage points to an overall rate of 12%.
Douche the Dim said:
"You are ranting."
Hardly. I've responded to your nonsense, pointing out your misunderstandings. Balls in your court, boy.
"I cannot read your incoherent garbage."
Then wipe the screen to see past your spittle. Honestly, Sonny, I can't do _everything_ for you . . . .
"Care to try again?"
Like I said: ball's in your court; I've answered, and now it's your turn to do something else besides spray all over your computer screen.
Get to work.
Dear Doosh,
You're so cute when you're a petulant fuckwad that i think i'll let that inane whining crapola from you stay up.
"Yeah, Thwap, I can see why you'd want to delete me; I told you to do your own work. I can see why you'd call me a mental midget, too.
Thwap, go to hell."
Ha-ha-ha! shithead.
Todd and Alison,
Thanks for helping out. As near as I can figure it, the dumbfuck is trying to tell us that his scatter-shot junior high school political science is stronger evidence of Canadian living standards than our own lying eyes.
I thought about introducing him to the concept of purchasing power parity, but I was still wondering if it was worth it.
"As near as I can figure it, the dumbfuck is trying to tell us that his scatter-shot junior high school political science is stronger evidence of Canadian living standards than our own lying eyes." -Thwap
I'll put this in a way you can understand:
Fuck. You said in your fuck post:
"Most studies show that the average Canadian enjoys the same level of disposable income as the average US-American."
Fuck. You provided no fuck evidence for this fucktard fuck shithead position. Neither fuck did Allison or Todddd shithead fuctard. I fuck provided evidence that you are fuctard shit full of beans. Fuck.
"Evidence"? What was your mother eating the night your dad fucked her up the ass and they conceived you?
I think someone has a crush on me.
Well, one of those deleted posts was mine, I think.
And I never kiss on a first date.
One thing about you thwap,you're pure class...
Todd,
I got nothing from you in my e-mail cache. You sure?
Anonymous,
Thanks for the compliment. I try. It's good to get validation now and again. Thanks.
That wasn't meant as a compliment buddy...
"D'oh!" ;)
(Can't please everyone.)
Could've sworn I posted it just after reading your rendition of Douche the Dim's insemination.
He really _does_ give anal sex a bad name . . . .
Post a Comment