That's a red herring, and bullfluff besides Rockman.

The constitution does not "prove" anything about reality. Many countries have constitutions which use terms which refer to forms of government completely which bear no semblance to how the nation is actually run.

I will accept that the constitution does [i]refer[/i] to America as a Republic, and never uses the word "democracy". However, democracy and republicanism are not mutually exclusive forms of government. All through history, nations have existed which have been both Republican and Democratic in their governance and so there is nothing to prevent America from being both, even if only one is mentioned in the Constitution.

Not only that, but in an American context, being a Republic is inseparable from being a democracy. Madison usurped the word from its traditional context (where it was a separate, but not mutually exclusive term from Democracy) and co-opted it so that it really just means "indirect democracy"... it becomes a sub-category of democracy. As a result, the use of the word Republic in the constitution is actually a reference to the fact that the United States [i]is[/i] meant to be a democracy.

This still doesn't mean that the constitution proves anything about reality... but if it did, it would prove the opposite of what you say it does.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

http://answers.yahoo.com/...qid=20061028091020AAuFy8a

Kusso. The argument I was refuting was that Democracy inevitably leads to socialism, socialism to financial collapse, and financial collapse to the end of democracy. The Scandanavian countries are a direct rebuttal to the middle of these three points. Large amount of natural resources and limited immigration would matter if the argument I was refuting was that "socialism inevitably leads to financial collapse unless the country has lots of resources or limited population", but no such condition was put forward.


I don't think I was clear here. Spain is indeed in significant trouble financially... as are Portugal and Ireland, my other two examples. However, these issues were not caused by social programs. They were, as you stated, primarily caused by a collapse in the real estate market.


Argentina's a great example of the fact that fiscal mis-management is not good financial doctrine. That's about it. I'll accept that their issues are linked to their brand of socialism, but Klown was calling European socialism a failure... and European socialism demonstrates that good fiscal management is a separate issue, as there are both well managed and poorly managed socialist countries on that continent.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

I would say the Eurozone's biggest problem is trying to operate without a combined fiscal and monetary policy, let alone the relatively large fiscal policies (and, for that matter, discipline) among the various participating members. What strikes me as bizarre is the apparent inability to see this and the belief that simply creating a bailout fund will solve the problem. Greece, Spain, Portugal, etc. are symptomatic of a bigger problem yet they seem content focusing on the bandaid solution.

Actually, I shouldn't find that bizarre given politics in the U.S. where we always seem more caught up in debating free contraception than in tying our rate of spending growth to some modicum of reasonable means.

It is important to distinguish the terms Democracy and Republic and it was an important portion of the founding of the U.S. Majority may rule, but we have the filibuster, checks and balances, the Senate, electoral college, state governments, etc.

Err... false regarding the Scandinavian countries.
#1) Only Norway is a "resource rich" country. Finland (technically not Scandinavia but let's include it anyway) and Sweden are probably similar to the US and Denmark is resource poor
#2) 15% of Sweden's population is foreign born (vs. 12.5% in the US), 10.4% of Denmark's population is foreign born, only Norway and Finland are relatively homogeneous. And immigration isn't negative for the economy in most cases... Finland is trying to increase immigration, some estimates say the country needs 1.8 million immigrants (5.3m population right now) by 2025 in order to meet the demands of an aging labour force.

They were used for comparative purposes to the problem children of Europe: Portugal, Spain, Greece, etc. The missing comparison that probably should be offered is they're not on the Euro.

Fair enough on resources, although I think you're discounting the Swedish timber industry. Denmark's advantage is in the shipping industry.

^finland is in the Euro

you can't say "well these countries don't face problems related to government overspending because they don't face large scale immigration and because they have natural resources" when 3 out of 4 don't have those resources and 3 out of 4 are extremely diverse (checked it on wikipedia - norway has 13% foreign born/born to foreign parents)

<--- Liberal Socialist Environmentalist

I put effort into trying to translate my ideals into English, its not my main language but I hope the message will be delivered.



First of all, there is no such thing as a True Democracy, you can have democratic rights as a citizen and you can have the illusion of power, you can have a democratic constitution and a democratic government elected in democratic elections but you can never have True Democracy.

Direct democracy (True democracy) is very inefficient, if every person had the power to vote in every decision ever to be made you would soon find that the world would stalemate in a blur of debates and no real decisions can be made. Which is why most governments instead use representative democracy, you entrust your power to another person, he is then suppose to make decisions and bring forth suggestions that represent your own ideals (this is rarely the case though...).

You now have the "illusion of choice", it works just as well as actual power of choice as long as you believe in the illusion.

Now lets assume you live in a "democratic" country and the majority of the population actually gets to elect who runs the government and the government actually gets to run the country. This is not always the case, oligarchies run several "democracies" in the western world. I wont name them if you don't know them you have the choice (see what I did there!) to find out yourself.

Now you've made your choice, assuming (n.b.!) you belong to the general population you are very satisfied, the representative you entrusted with your power are now in charge. They will govern by their ideals however, as they see fit to achieve what, their goals, not yours.

Somewhere along the way the illusion of choice will be broken, either they choose a different path to reach your goal or their goal deviates from yours.

You will find yourself disagreeing with the government, this is where your true power lies, you have the power to overthrow your chosen representatives. This is a power that very few get to use, mostly because it isn't needed, as in most western societies there are already existing mechanisms to handle situations like this, but on rare occasions is it because you fear the consequences.

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. "
Thomas Jefferson

There you have the your democracy and how it can fail

Now for your thesis which really doesn't describe the failure of democracy at all.

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government.
It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.

You are assuming that the voters all have the same idea of what's best for them when in fact the two major definitions of these largesse directly contradicts each other. I'm making a rough generalisation here but I'm sure you can see what I'm trying to say.

A) You can receive social benefits from the government, this requires a higher tax rate.

B) You can receive economical benefits from the government, the requires a lower tax rate.

You will have a part of the population that are prone to receive boons from A rather then B and vice versa, hence creating a schism that is the very basics of financial politics today.

You can have Social and economical benefits (AB) at the same time but its not sustainable, and soon you will find that you instead end up with neither.
This is where you assume a dictatorship must rise.

I say you have a much higher rate of probability finding a new democratic representatives that will offer either A, Ab, AB, aB or B or hell they might even offer a C.



"It seems to me the only thing prolonging the existence of the Democratic system is the innovation of new technologies and economic engines that have primarily come from the United States."

This is but one way to run a democracy, you are assuming the world uses the united states as a universal template for how a democracy is run. I regret to inform you that this is not the case. Your way (I'm now assuming you are an American due to my ideals) of enforcing your "democracy" on countries are described by some as severe acts of war crimes, it is also a very good proof of that your democracy is not a ideal solution that can be applied everywhere.

"The United States has, until recently, avoided the decent into democratic socialism to which Europe has succumbed."

You are assuming socialism is a bad thing, this is because you do not share the ideals of socialism, this is ok, it is within your right to do so. As it is within my right to say I think capitalism is a thorn in the side of any country that wishes to apply democracy in the long run. Short term profitism needs to be replaced with long term ecological thinking where environment, society and economy all have equal factors, economy should never be allowed to dominate. This is the only way to secure a sustainable economy as we move away from a steady growth economy.

"New innovations allow the state to continue to fund itself. As socialism spreads, which seems to be inevitable under democracy,"

If this is indeed inevitable, is this not due to the fact that the people, the very foundation of democracy desires the benefits of socialism? Why do they do that, and who are you to deny them the power of choice? Are they being mislead or can it simply be because socialism is needed as a force of balance in the equation?
If the system wasn't flawed from the beginning, then why would this need exist? If it is a part of human nature, and hence inevitable then why even argue the case?


"The incentives for developing new innovations diminishes, while the amount of money required to fund the state increases."

Incentives are something that encourages desirable behaviour, its a form of control, the government has the power to give this control to private interest, however this is also a kind incentive.

"The question for Democracy becomes, can the state itself facilitate the development of new innovations that will expand its economy and feed its ever expanding need for cash? The answer seems to me to be no. Europe has declined into stagnation and debt crises, which seems to be the ultimate fate of all democracy."

You are talking about the fall of democracy when in fact what you are describing is the fall of capitalism.
The general idea that the markets needed to function with the least possible government intervention lead to the false assumption that not intervening at all would work.
Capitalism did not fail because of democracy, nor socialism it failed because of the need of profit in combination with failure of the governments to regulate the global economy.


Whoever read this far I hope you enjoyed it!

/falls asleep over keyboard at 6am...ah beb t5 tb m

Didn't have the time to read all the posts here, but I did want to say something about American democracy. American democracy has been on a spiral towards more and more federal power at the expense of the states. For a long time, the people have not felt this shift in power because it has not hit them directly as much. People were free to blame state governments for situations caused by the federal government blackmailing or otherwise controlling the actions of states. I'm not saying that all federal control over the states is unjustified, but I think the current dynamic is unbalanced. The people are largely powerless to alter the dynamic through election of federal officials, because the politic dividing lines are not set properly. Too many people are like myself with views that cross the political spectrum or are simply not represented at all in America's political spectrum. Our house is divided; it cannot stand.

Fortunately, there is another truth in this country: unsupported floors inevitably collapse. As the federal government has subverted the authority of the states, they have undermined their supports. The people have the power through the states and the states have the power to rewrite our constitution when they have enough of federal interference. A constitutional convention is coming for America and we will rewrite the destiny of our country as we take back the powers which our fed has unfairly claimed from the states and the people.

I'm too tired and that was probably a bit ramblish anyway.

States' Rights have been on an upswing for the past two decades, although a lot of that remains to be seen as we continue to experience fallout from the recession of 2008.

Democracy is a great govt for teching and any sort of reselling.
Just start out as a tyranny until you hit your land goal and go from there.

It's the republic casher that's really doomed.
Or all explorers for that matter.

Fascist, forget it, don't even bother.

"and we will rewrite the destiny of our country as we take back the powers which our fed has unfairly claimed from the states and the people."

us civil war, anybody? :P

VIC,
YOU WIN THE INTERNET TODAY. CONGRATULATIONS!

HA!

BILL

Btw, I'm kind of tired of the whole 'OMG CORRUPT POLITICIANS!' trope. Yes, many of them are blatantly corrupt, but the majority of them aren't. As long as you realize that most politicians have a single goal that dictates all of their actions: Getting re-elected. That's all that matters to most politicians. Once they gain that power, they will do whatever it takes to KEEP that power. Simple as that.

If we want this to change, we have to be the ones to force it. New laws that severely curtail the infusion of money into politics, and some form of term limits would go a LONG way to making things a bit better for the average joe. Although with the incredibly bad Citizens United decision, I'm not sure if the first one is even possible anymore.....

Except that Sweden is among the top in europe in both net immigration and immigration per capita :P

I think that this quotation from the original poster is faulty: "People will always vote for their own self interest, which is an expanded state providing more and more benefits."

This is not true if you actually take a look at what's going on in America today. Media plays a large part in providing "information" also known as misinformation, convincing middle american red state voters that "job creators" have shared interests with them. I mean, take a look at how the Tea Party was so angry about Entitlement taxes... so middle class/lower class voters were angry about and Entitlement tax that only affects those who are really rich. This kind of thing is paradoxical. Any lower class voter who votes for the Republicans is actually voting against their fiscal advantage. This cannot be denied.

the media plays a large part in how people vote... it is the voice of politics. If things are getting slightly better for Americans as a whole (in truth) but the media says things are getting worse (untruth) then you have people who are misinformed and vote one way because some hot blonde milf on tv told them to.

"Any lower class voter who votes for the Republicans is actually voting against their fiscal advantage. This cannot be denied. "

I read the posts, just don't have the time for responding to the others, later perhaps, this was just low hanging fruit.

All in all, democrats support more regulations, which benefit big business and discourage small business growth. Given that information (which can practically be documented as truth) it seems that anyone of low income voting for democrats would be voting for dependency on government, rather than individual prosperity. Now fiscal advantage can mean two things, either freedom from responsibility and production as a citizen and thus the ability to do nothing or the freedom to produce as one sees fit. Given what you said above that quote, I would say you mean the first, which slowly erodes the ability of a prosperous economy...eh more to come on this subject.

Um, more regulations HURT big business. Are you kidding me? If you can claim that it "can practically be documented as truth" I expect you to document some proof from an objective source.

Also, the government EXISTS for the purpose of having people depend on it. Are you kidding me? If poor people shouldn't rely on the government or be helped by the government, who else can they turn to? Businesses? Good will from fellow citizens?

Republicans want to eliminate a publicly available healthcare system and cut social security for the elderly... poor people should not vote for that.

Republicans want to tax the poor more so they have to work harder to pay their taxes... meanwhile taxing the rich less. Poor people should not vote for that.

Republicans want to cut all sorts of social programs that help poor people, like planned parenthood and anything to do with good education. Poor people should not vote for that.

BUT... they do. The bottom line is it sucks to be poor. And you guys got a lot of poor people in America... the government is gonna screw with you no matter what. But I would expect that the poor class would vote for a government who would screw with them the least... or vote at all.

Oh, get this. In some Republican states, they have made it required that you have photo id in order to vote to reduce voter fraud. How many homeless people do you know who have drivers license or photo id? mmmhmmm

DISSIDENT, ARE YOU ACTUALLY TRYING TO BE WRONG? BECAUSE SERIOUSLY, YOU NAILED IT. AS FAR AS BEING WRONG GOES, YOU REALLY KNOCKED THIS ONE OUT OF THE PARK. YOU COULD NOT POSSIBLY BE MORE WRONG.

MASSIVE REGULATION DOES NOT HURT BIG BUSINESS NEARLY AS MUCH AS IT HURTS A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER. HOW DO I KNOW THIS? BECAUSE I AM ONE.

AS A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER, I DO NOT HAVE THE BUDGET TO HIRE AN ARMY OF LAWYERS AND ACCOUNTANTS TO FIND ME EVERY LOOPHOLE IN THE LAW. I CANNOT AFFORD TO PAY A LOBBYIST TO BUY A POLITICIAN FOR ME, SO THAT MY POLITICIAN WILL WRITE EXEMPTIONS TO LAWS OR TAX BREAKS JUST FOR ME. UNLIKE G.E. (A BIG BUSINESS LAST TIME I CHECKED) I ACTUALLY HAVE TO PAY A HUGE PORTION OF EVERY DOLLAR MY COMPANY PROFITS TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. I DON'T HAVE A WAY TO REDUCE MY FEDERAL TAX BURDEN TO ZERO LIKE MY BIG BUSINESS COMPETITORS CAN DO.

I PAY MY TWELVE EMPLOYEES FAR MORE THAN THE INDUSTRY STANDARD, BECAUSE I VALUE THEM AND BECAUSE MOST OF THEM WERE MY FRIENDS AND COWORKERS BEFORE I BOUGHT THE COMPANY FROM THE PREVIOUS OWNER. YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE FEDERAL GOVT TAXES THIS EVIL, GREEDY BUSINESS OWNER MORE? IT LIMITS HOW MUCH I CAN PAY MY EMPLOYEES. GIVEN THE CHOICE OF WATCHING YOUR COMPANY SINK UNDER, OR LOWERING PAYROLL.. WHICH WOULD YOU CHOOSE?

IF - OR IF THE DEMOCRATS HAVE THEIR WAY, WHEN - THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TAXES OR REGULATES MY COMPANY OUT OF EXISTENCE, DO YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENS TO MY EMPLOYEES? THEY HAVE TO TAKE 30 TO 50 PERCENT PAY CUTS TO GO WORK FOR MY COMPETITION.

THOSE ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS YOU SPEAK SO LOVINGLY OF ARE ABSOLUTE FRAUDS. MY EMPLOYEES CURRENTLY PAY 4.2% (FORMERLY 6.2% AND PROBABLY WILL BE AGAIN) OF THEIR WAGES INTO A SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM THAT THE POLITICIANS HAVE RUN INTO BANKRUPTCY. ON TOP OF WHAT THEY PUT IN, I HAVE TO ADD 6.2% OF EVERY DOLLAR I PAY THEM TO MY PAYROLL EXPENSES TO GO TO THIS SCAM. THAT 6.2%... AGAIN.. LIMITS HOW MUCH I CAN PAY MY EMPLOYEES. SERIOUSLY, IF YOU WORK FOR A LIVING, TAKE 10.4% (OR 12.4% WHEN RATES GO BACK UP) OF WHAT YOU MAKE, THEN LOOK AT THAT STATEMENT YOU GET FROM THE SS OFFICE EVERY YEAR SHOWING WHAT YOUR EXPECTED BENEFIT WILL BE WHEN YOU RETIRE... ARE YOU REALLY GOING TO TELL ME YOU COULDN'T GET A BETTER RETURN ON YOUR INVESTMENT IF THAT 10.4 OR 12.4 PERCENT WAS IN YOUR OWN CONTROL INSTEAD OF IN THE HANDS OF THE POWER MAD FREAKS IN DC? (FOR U.S. FOLKS.. I REALIZE DISSI THAT YOU'RE NOT IN THE US, BUT THE RETURNS THEY CLAIM WE'LL GET FROM SS ARE VASTLY INFERIOR TO WHAT PEOPLE COULD DO ON THEIR OWN.. AND THE WAY THEY'RE GOING WE WON'T EVEN GET WHAT THEY CLAIM WE WILL GET.)

IF OBAMACARE STANDS, I HAVE TWO CHOICES: STAY UNDER THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO STILL BE CONSIDERED A SMALL BUSINESS, OR IF I SURPASS THAT NUMBER, REDUCE MY EMPLOYEES' PAY. YOU SEE, THIS "FREE" HEALTHCARE THAT CLASS WARFARE FANS ARE SO ENAMORED WITH IS NOT FREE AT ALL. FOR A BUSINESS, IT'S SIMPLY ANOTHER EXPENSE. IF I HAVE TO PROVIDE A RIDICULOUS, ONE SIZE FITS ALL HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN FOR MY EMPLOYEES, IT COMES OUT OF *THEIR* PAY, BECAUSE THE MASSIVE COSTS ARE TOO MUCH FOR MY BUSINESS TO BEAR. MOST OF MY EMPLOYEES ARE FAIRLY YOUNG, AND CAN GET *VERY* CHEAP HSA PLANS ON THEIR OWN. BUT NOT IF I GROW MY BUSINESS PAST A CERTAIN POINT. NO, THEN THE EVIL GREEDY BUSINESS OWNER *MUST* PROVIDE COVERAGE THAT FAR EXCEEDS WHAT MOST OF MY EMPLOYEES NEED. EVERY VISIT TO THE DOCTOR FOR A SNIFFLE MUST BE COVERED BY THE COMPANY PLAN - PAYING AN INSURANCE COMPANY'S MARKUP ON THE COST, BTW - WHICH THE EMPLOYEES *COULD* AFFORD TO PAY FOR ON THEIR OWN. BUT NOOOOO.. THE ALL KNOWING AND OH-SO-CARING FEDERAL GOVT KNOWS BETTER THAN MY EMPLOYEES HOW TO HANDLE THEIR OWN HEALTH EXPENSES. I'M SURE MY SINGLE MALE EMPLOYEES WILL BE HAPPY TO HAVE PREGNANCY COVERAGE IN THEIR GOVT MANDATED HEALTH PLAN, AND MY MARRIED EMPLOYEES WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO LIVE WITHOUT PAYING AN INSURANCE COMPANY'S MARKUP ON CONTRACEPTIVE AND ABORTION EXPENSES.

TAXING "THE RICH" MORE DOES NOT HELP ANYONE. IT SIMPLY TAKES MONEY AWAY FROM PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY KNOW HOW TO MANAGE IT, AND INSTEAD PLACES IT IN THE HANDS OF INCREDIBLY INEPT AND CORRUPT BUREAUCRACIES WHICH SQUANDER A HUGE PORTION OF IT WRITING RIDICULOUS LAWS AND REGULATIONS THAT NOBODY NEEDS OR WANTS.

OH, GET THIS. SOMEONE WHO IS NOT FROM THE U.S. WANTS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE TAKE NO STEPS WHATSOEVER TO ENSURE THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT CITIZENS HERE CAN'T VOTE HERE. HMMM.. INTERESTING.

DISSI, I LIKE YOU, AND I'M SORRY FOR THE TONE OF THIS POST, BUT YOU REALLY GOT MY DANDER UP HERE. YOU CAN SERIOUSLY TAKE ALL THE CLASS WARFARE CLAPTRAP AND STUFF IT.

HA!

SAM.

For the record, I don't argue for Civil War or that we are headed for one. The US is headed for a constitutional convention, which is perfectly legal under the US Constitution. When 34 states apply for a convention, then a constitutional convention is called. Any amendment that comes from that convention must be ratified by 38 states to become part of the constitution.

"MASSIVE REGULATION DOES NOT HURT BIG BUSINESS NEARLY AS MUCH AS IT HURTS A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER. HOW DO I KNOW THIS? BECAUSE I AM ONE."

First of all, I didn't say what kind of regulation. I was actually referring to banking regulation, mortgage regulation, the trading of credit default swaps, and derivatives. If all of these things had been regulated like a sane country does (AKA Canada) you'd not be in such a mess right now. THAT sort of deregulation of your banking system with no checks and balances into fraudulent activity or predatory lending... you know, the activity that caused your mortgage crisis and the bailing out of the big banks (who still give themselves HUGE bonuses by the way) and have not changed their ways one bit... don't be surprised if this all happens again. Not to mention... nobody has gone to jail from wall street yet. Please tell me it bothers you that your money went to them. If you say it's alright, then I can call you a liar.

Sam, you've been making some great points so far, but this latest one is straight from the mouth of the GOP. Just because you might be a beneficent employer, doesn't mean ANYONE ELSE is. Sure, that may be a bit of fear-mongering and conjecture on my part, but it highlights the reason why laws and regulations are necessary. People have had the ability to purchase their own healthcare for years, but a MASSIVE chunk of people refuse to until they actually get sick. And by then it's too damn late. If people were forced to have some basic health insurance, would they be more or less likely to visit a doctor instead of an emergency room?

And like Dissident just pointed out, do you really think the rich are better able to manage their money than most people? Well you're right, because they manage to siphon the bulk of it offshore and abuse tax loopholes with their armies of lawyers and tax professionals. There's a reason Romney isn't making his records public: It's EMBARRASSING to the average American.

Let's just go back to deregulating the system, because that has worked SOOOO well!! And trickle down economics? How many godamn times do we have to keep making the SAME MISTAKE and expecting the outcome to be different! Go look up 1929 and the Great Depression and come back and tell me how wildly different the current situation is from back then. Tell me how the Democratic government put programs in place under FDR that gave the rich HUGE tax breaks and DEREGULATED business so that it could pull the rest of us lowly peons up into prosperity with them.

Oh wait, you can't possibly tell me that, because IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

I don't really know why you guys are so anti-big business (except Trumper who seems to use it as a proxy for economic success).

Big business, small business, it doesn't matter. As long as goods and services are being produced in the most efficient way possible. Anti-trust legislation takes care of a large portion of hte problems arising from big businesses. Ok, I guess some people want to "protect the cityscapes" by favoring small businesses but ultimately that doesn't account for a very large portion of actual small businesses.

I'm not anti-big business. I'm anti-financial meltdown of 2008.

Big Business is a term to describe a small business that was very successful.

As for the innovation arguement seems that some fairly totalitarian government had some fair success in developing products also, especially when looking at war materials. , even with in the US the state has greatly provided the support or out right led in development. Everything from Nuclear power, Computer miniaturization, lasers, optics , cryogenitcs. development was militarily driven and were made profitable by being brought to economies of scale, so that we now enjoy the "civillian" uses such as the home PC, medical equipment etc.

I vote Pepsi!

Americans are afraid to go to the doctor because they are afraid of how much it will cost or that their insurance won't cover them (or their insurance will screw them over). This is the wrong way for a healthcare system to operate. If people can go to the doctor's office without these fears, they would go sooner if they thought something is wrong... they may get treatment for something serious that was caught earlier than if they found out they are stage 4 in some sort of cancer problem... and it would be much cheaper.

I'm not saying that Canada is perfect in this regard. In fact, we have the 30th best healthcare system in the world according to Businessinsider.com. America is 37th... after Saudi Arabia who is ranked 26th, Colombia at 22nd, Oman is 8th (have you heard of Oman?), and of course the French have the best healthcare system in the world.

The rankings are based on an index of five factors: health, health equality, responsiveness, responsiveness equality, and fair financial contribution.

This study was done in the year 2000. They were going to try to rerank everyone again in 2010 but too many of the right people were upset about it and nothing was studied or published on the matter.

They are ranked in large part according to how much the state spends per capita... America was ranked so poorly because they spent the MOST per person.

Please don't tell me you're happy with your healthcare system.

That's one of the reason's why I loved my 401k. Loved, in the past tense, because I haven't been able to contribute in a while. If I could opt out of SS, and put it all in my own 401k. I'd do it in a heartbeat.



I've been working in a small company for almost 3 years now. When I joined there were about 11-12 employees. Now we're over 30 employees. They finally managed to get a company sponsored medical plan, instead of the state sponsored medical plan. I can tell you that the state sponsored one sucked. It was more expensive and covered less. With the new plans, which HSA is one of them; the HSA is FAR cheaper for all age groups, and the difference I used to pay, I'm putting in the HSA. It's a far better option for us.



We would have to have a number of states get fed up, and exert their states rights. For example, states can opt out of Obamacare, and they won't get financially penalized. If 5 states opt out, the others have to increase price. So it'll be a tipping point where it won't make financial sense to stay in it, since everyone's going to jump on "free healthcare". You'll have a handful of states paying for everyone. Bankrupting those states. But yes, once more states exert states rights, a Constitutional Convention can be more successfully called.

Those participating in the convention will be the state governors, and the state legislatures. NOT anyone from Congress. Besides they have such a piss-poor record and approval, I don't think ANYONE wants them in our Constitutional Convention.

Going back to Democracy vs Republic.
The American Colonists complained about "no taxation without representation". The British Monarchy said, "but you are represented, 'virtually' ". The Americans didn't buy it, the 'representatives' where appointed, they were not elected by the people. With today's current affairs, it almost feels like a large number of them are 'appointed' and not 'elected'.

In the American Constitution put many checks and balances in place. The Constitutional Convention is one of them; it hasn't been used in a LONG time.

THANK YOU FOR THE COMPLIMENT, TELLARION. HOWEVER, THE FIRST LINE OF THIS RESPONSE IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE RED-V-BLUE ATTITUDE THAT FRUSTRATES ME SO MUCH. I STATED WHAT I BELIEVE ON THE SUBJECT OF WEALTH THEFT/REDISTRIBUTION, AND ON CLASS WARFARE IN GENERAL. IT HAPPENS TO LINE UP WITH WHAT REPUBLICAN POLITICIANS *CLAIM* TO BELIEVE. SO WHAT?

I'M SOMEONE WHO IN RECENT YEARS HAS COME TO CONSIDER HIMSELF A LIBERTARIAN. THIS MEANS THAT I BELIEVE THE ONLY LEGITIMATE FUNCTION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS TO PROTECT OUR LIBERTY. THAT'S IT. NOTHING MORE. IT'S NOT THEIR JOB TO TAKE CARE OF ME, OR TO MAKE SURE THAT I DON'T MAKE BAD DECISIONS. IT'S NOT THEIR JOB TO MAKE SURE THAT I SAVE FOR RETIREMENT, OR THAT I PLAN FOR MEDICAL DISASTER. IT'S ALSO NOT THEIR JOB TO SAVE ME IF I DO FAIL TO PLAN FOR THOSE EVENTS.

I ALSO BELIEVE THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS ABSOLUTELY ZERO BUSINESS TELLING PEOPLE WHO THEY MAY OR MAY NOT MARRY. I DON'T THINK THEY HAVE ANY BUSINESS TELLING PEOPLE WHICH INTOXICANTS THEY MAY CHOOSE TO CONSUME, EVEN IF THOSE INTOXICANTS ARE HORRIBLY BAD FOR THEM. DO THOSE BELIEFS MAKE ME A MOUTHPIECE FOR THE DEMOCRATS?

I THINK WE NEED AN IMMIGRATION SYSTEM THAT ALLOWS PEOPLE AN AFFORDABLE WAY TO STAY HERE, *IF THEY ARE WORKING*. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD REWARD THOSE WHO HAVE ALREADY COME HERE ILLEGALLY BY MOVING THEM TO THE FRONT OF THE LINE AHEAD OF THOSE WHO PLAY BY THE RULES, BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT IF THEY CAN DEMONSTRATE A WILLINGNESS AND DESIRE TO MAKE IT ON THEIR OWN, THEY SHOULD HAVE AN EASY WAY TO DO SO WHILE APPLYING FOR CITIZENSHIP. NO LAW-ABIDING PERSON, WILLING TO LIVE ON THE FRUITS OF THEIR OWN LABOR, SHOULD BE DENIED RESIDENCY HERE. I DO NOT THINK THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT CITIZENS SHOULD BE ABLE TO VOTE HOWEVER, AND I BELIEVE WE MUST HAVE METHODS IN PLACE TO ENSURE THE INTEGRITY OF OUR ELECTION PROCESS. SO WHICH PARTY DO I LINE UP WITH ON THIS ONE? AM I A REPBLICRATODEMICAN?

AND BACK TO MY INITIAL POST, I WANT TO CLARIFY SOMETHING. I'M NOT AGAINST BIG BUSINESS EITHER. I CANNOT UNDERSTAND THE MINDSET THAT BECAUSE A BUSINESS HAS BECOME SUCCESSFUL, IT ALL OF A SUDDEN BECOMES THIS EVIL ENTITY THAT MUST ATTONE FOR ITS SINS BY BEING FORCED TO GIVE UP MORE OF ITS PROFITS.

I AM AGAINST FEDERAL MEDDLING IN BUSINESS, BECAUSE THE END RESULT IS VIRTUALLY ALWAYS CORRUPTION, AND A LESS LEVEL PLAYING FIELD. I DON'T BEGRUDGE MY BIG COMPETITORS THEIR SUCCESS. HOWEVER, THEY SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BUY POLITICIANS, AND GET THEMSELVES EXEMPTION FROM REGULATIONS THAT I HAVE TO TRY TO FIND SOME WAY TO FOLLOW. AS LONG AS WE ALLOW THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO OVERSTEP ITS BOUNDS AND ENGAGE IN REGULATION THAT SHOULD BE LEFT TO THE STATES OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, THIS CORRUPTION WILL CONTINUE.

AND BTW, MAYBE I'M MISTAKEN HERE, BUT I THOUGHT THE FINANCIAL INDUSTRY WAS ONE OF THE MOST HEAVILY REGULATED INDUSTRIES IN THE U.S. *BEFORE* THE BIG COLLAPSE. ALL THE REGULATION IN THE WORLD ISN'T GOING TO HELP, WHEN GIANT BUREAUCRACIES RULE THE ROOST. AND YOU BET I HATE THE FACT THAT MY TAX DOLLARS WENT TO THOSE COMPANIES WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO FAIL.

I KNOW MY COMPANY IS NOT AN EXAMPLE OF A MODEL THAT ALL BUSINESSES FOLLOW. MY POINT THOUGH IS THAT IT DOESN'T MATTER. WHEN YOU TAKE MORE MONEY FROM THE SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS, THERE ARE TWO PLACES IT WILL COME FROM. INCREASED PRICES - WHICH EVENTUALLY HIT YOU, THE CONSUMER - OR LOWER WAGES. IN THE CASE OF A SMALLER, LESS PROFIT OBSESSED BUSINESS LIKE MINE, THERE SIMPLY IS NO OTHER PLACE FOR THOSE FUNDS TO COME FROM.. FOR A LARGER OR MORE PROFIT OBSESSED COMPANY, IT JUST WON'T COME FROM ANYWHERE ELSE, EVEN IF IT CAN. AND THAT DOES NOT MAKE THE CEO OF THAT COMPANY EVIL. HE IS CHOOSING TO USE THE FRUITS OF HIS LABOR HOW HE SEES FIT. IF HIS EMPLOYEES THINK THE PAY STRUCTURE IS UNFAIR, NOBODY IS FORCING THEM TO REMAIN EMPLOYEES THERE. THEY HAVE THE LIBERTY TO LEAVE.

ONE LAST THING. I NEVER SAID "THE RICH" ARE BETTER ABLE TO MANAGE THEIR MONEY THAN MOST PEOPLE. I SAID THEY'RE BETTER AT IT THAN FEDERAL BUREAUCRACIES, AND I THINK ANYBODY WHO THINKS OTHERWISE IS BEING WILLFULLY BLIND. I THINK THE FEDERAL GOVT RATES JUST BARELY ABOVE THE GUY IN THE CARDBOARD HOUSE FOR MONEY MANAGEMENT SKILLS.

Learn some formatting?

Just like to say to XiQter MD, that was a great read :)

" i thought the financial industry was one of the most heavily regulated industries in the u.S. *before* the big collapse. All the regulation in the world isn't going to help, when giant bureaucracies rule the roost. And you bet i hate the fact that my tax dollars went to those companies which should have been allowed to fail."

The thing is, they were too big to fail. You've heard that phrase before right? If you let all those banks and insurance companies die, you'd have been way worse off than you are right now. Also, the banks paid all of that money back already.

But, I'd like to point out that it's an incorrect statement to say the american financial institution is one of the most heavily regulated. In fact, Clinton started a phase of mass deregulation of the banking system that led to prosperity for the financial sector... which continued through Bush... and led to what we have now. It's all documented. A good documentary on this very subject (which I consider to be quite objective) is "Inside Job"... it's on Netflix. I say objective because the film blames Obama and Clinton and Bush... but also gives us faces behind the scenes in Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, Larry Summers, and a whole bunch of other people + their depositions.

tiz doomed. a bunch of bullies are going to gang up on me and decide how i should live my life. i'll be flipping them off and running around like a drunken squirrel or monkey while laughing at them and the absurdity that they use to think and which they might call a brain. if you can't guarantee my freedom, what are y'all good for?

"Big Business" isn't a bad thing, but it isn't a good thing either. It's just a thing. Whether or not it is good or bad can be entirely subjective.

The problem people have with "big business" usually stems from some memorable experience of their own with a "big business" that was irresponsible, corrupt or even just indifferent to CSR.

I've stated before, capitalism is great at what it does -- efficiently allocate capital to its most productive uses -- where "productive" is typically defined as whatever makes more capital. The assumption is that this is driven by needs in society.

However, the "ideal" doesn't usually work. When people refer (negatively) to "Big Business", they are usually referring to a business that has become "faceless", in other words, so big there is no real accountability for their actions. This is where governments and regulation come in. Left unchecked, "big business" WILL pollute, put their employees in danger, put their customers in danger, violate individual rights, suppress speech, discriminate, pressure down all forms of compensation/benefits to the greatest extent possible, etc.

In the wonderful land of "theory", this can all be countered by market forces recognizing such bad actions and punishing the business. Customers go elsewhere, better employers take the best employees, etc. etc. But we don't live in "theory". The market is full of friction -- forces that prevent perfect competition. Some of which are even designed to protect -- BUSINESS! Would you go buy the iPhone from AppleCloneCompany that had better practices with employee safety in its manufacturing if everything else were equal? Of course! But that cannot exist thanks to IP/Patent law.

Would you prefer to get your next kilowatt of power from something other than the coal company whose latest mining accident killed a bunch of workers? Of course! But you (probably) have no idea where the kilowatt of power you are using came from.

Imperfect information, imperfect competition, human nature (as expressed in consumer behavior), and short term results-focus in the market all tend to favor regulation at some level.

So the debate is really about how much is the right amount. Many libertarians and even some republicans espouse completely unrealistic scenarios, but I think it is usually just to pull the pendulum further in the direction they want. It's like starting negotiations at $100 when you know your crap isn't worth $50.

Thank you!

Regarding the "big business" debate, noam chomsky explains it alot better then me:

http://youtu.be/_TjPhuN3N9I

First Big business does not pay higher tax rates then smaller, when we are talking corporations the smaller corporations pay closer to the full rate where the larger corporations can choose where to report thier income so as to pay lower rates. never mind the small to medium size corporation has less exposure across the politcal spectrum to Buy benefits, that a large bussiness can buy spreading contracts across numerous districts so they have leverage on so many politicians, good example are the defense contractors like a Lockheed Martin, or a Boeing. Most of the Large corps pay close to 20% tax rate. and while that is minamlly higher then most individuals rates do they recieve greater benefits I would say Definetly, we have full wings of government working to negotiate foreign sales for their supply, products, labor rates, taxation , tariffs etc. whose protecting there overseas investments, transportation and so forth. So they get losts of welfare for their tax dollar. While the Corporation are owned by people they are not nessearily owned by Citizens , and so really should not involved in the Democratic process. At the same time this need to buy the influence makes the company less efficient as surely to ensure that political leverage they have operations placed where it is not necessarily the most advantagous and result in additional costs.

As to regulation the Banking sector was heavily regulated and we basically losened the regulations to allow them to fully compete with the rest of the finance sectors. But to say that the finance sector is one of the most heavily regulated industries, there might be a lot of laws on the books but lets face reality if you break every rule to line the pockets of your best most influential "preferred" customers it really don't matter how many million small customers you screw , the only ones that ever go to jail for stealling Millions are the ones that cross the line and start screwing some of those "Preferred" customers out of their money.

Dissident, that mass deregulation is the single greatest cause of the current problems. That prosperity you say it brought was false prosperity. The deregulation allowed the banking industry to effectively work a massive pyramid scheme, and the bottom finally fell out of it.

Regulation of business is like anything else. Some sectors need it far more than others.

Also, I wish people would stop confusing freedom with democracy. Socialism is a system with limited freedom, which can be either directly democratic or extremely authoritarian.

Tanx, I agree with you wholeheartedly. I think you might want to direct your explanation to the person who was arguing with me. =)

When I said clinton and bush deregulated the financial sector and created prosperity... I think I should have qualified that this was all very bad. Apologies.

TanX, it's not about regulation or deregulation; it's about the right regulation. Regulations to encourage banks to loan to poorer people led them to make loans with insane terms so that they could protect against the risk of nonrepayment. Discrimination regulations and the Community Reinvestment Act all worked to force banks to make loans to people that they knew were too risky but for the regulations that required the loans anyway as a cost of doing business. The regulations started off smaller and grew incrementally. Since this process started during the Clinton Administration and continued through the Bush Administration, I would say that at the begginning, government was betting in the margins of this issue. However, more regulations of this kind moved the government to betting on the whole sector of loans to people that couldn't afford them.

Tell me, does that sound like the kind of loan that banks should have been making? Does that sould like the kind of loan that banks would have made if they weren't forced to? Do these sound like the right regulations?

When the wall between investment and commercial banking was taken down to fight the risk of flight to overseas banks where large companies could do both in the same place and at the same time, the risks of combined entities was reintroduced. This would have been alright if the government had then found the source of some level of other risk and put regulations in place to defend against it or if the government had removed regulations that created additional risks in banking. The government didn't do a risk assessment of the regulations they changed or of what regulations would further need changes. Republicans and Democrats willfully chose not to anticipate the possible consequences of their actions. This contributed heavily to the start of the current crisis.

As I said, it's not about regulation or deregulation; it's about the right regulation at the right time covering the right risks and making sure that the system in general never has too much risk. The government exists to create the skeleton of the economy for most parts of our economy. The skeleton is simply a guide, the set of rules, for the economy to operate under. It's a local ordinance that says utility companies have to restore damaged property (when putting in or fixing utilities) to prior or better condition. It's the agriculture departments of various states saying that packages of food can't be left directly on the floor. It's nuclear regulatory authorities saying that nuclear powerplants must have high levels of security. When it comes to the financial industry it's necessarily more complicated than simple safety or compensatory issues. It's about trade offs on risk that the government must consider when changing regulations. Regulations are necessary to curb the worst excesses of business when it comes to environmental damage, public health, national defense, and financial risk, but they should be arranged so as to take advantage of the nature of business to encourage good behavior and discourage bad behavior. The right regulations done in the right way with all of the trade-offs thoroughly understood and discussed.

Angel you nailed it there...wrong regulation caused this meltdown, just as the depression was caused by wrong regulation(smoot-hawley tariff, plus others).

Those on the left always talk about regulation and complaining about how our money ended up on wall street in bailouts, but lets talk through this problem. The government did as Angel said and forced banks to make bad loans in the name of getting everyone in a home...banks had to report their loans to the government to appease the CRA act, which rewarded the exact behavior which caused them to fail. Do you see how politicians had more than one motive to help the banks?

Diss, on regulations helping big business, check who the businesses are that push for the most regulations...US Steel is a good place to start as they are the one most study here in America when we study monopolies. Regulations create an environment where no small business can enter and compete, which is why those already in the business push for more regulations. It's called pulling the ladder up behind you. Without the ability to compete, no small businesses are created and competition slowly dies out. Thus we end up with psudo-monopolies and trusts that own industries. Big business is not evil as other have stated, but big business in collusion with government is evil. If libertarians had our way there could be large businesses without a competitive advantage. If the government doesn't look to alter whole industries, then they cannot favor anyone and thus corruption is removed from the system. The government is here to create a structure under which society can exist, not run society. If government helps the poor as they are here in America, you end up with many times more single mother homes, many times more on welfare, and whole neighborhoods in which nobody has a job and crime runs rampant. Government is nothing more than a monopoly business that has law behind them.

"The government..."forced" banks to make bad loans in the name of getting everyone in a home"

wow, really? The government forced banks to lend predatory mortgages? I will allow that there are a few in government who have their fingers in both pies and stand to scoop bonuses from the banks as "consultants" or whatever... but to say that the government created the conditions for this type of banking to occur "forces" the banks to lend in this way... that's crazy talk man.

Banks gave subprime loans to people who couldn't pay for if because the risk was off of their backs. Banks grouped all of these fluffty loans into Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs) and sold them off as AAA rated investments. Banks got their money out of it without any risk. Banks gave their employees bonuses for giving people sub prime mortgages.

So, let me get this straight. The government forced banks to find a loophole like this? Give your head a shake. Nobody had to twist their arms to make billions of dollars... I'm pretty sure it was their idea. The rating agencies who should have monitored this were on the take. Any agency that was actually objective was stripped of manpower and authority to actually do anything... Thank Alan Greenspan and Larry Summers for that.

Lastly, I'm not talking about business regulation or industrial regulation or anything like that. If you've been following along you would know that I am talking about financial regulation... you know, the cause of your economic fallout.

Go read Ayn Rand or something.

Diss, check out the CRA bill, it literally forced and then rewarded banks for doing just that. If they didn't meet a certain criteria for loans to people who didn't qualify(in the name of getting everyone into a house) they were penalized, and since banks all get their money from the fed, the penalty had weight behind it. It was either lower the lending rates to those people just so they would qualify or be penalized. The banks then didn't want the loans because they knew they weren't good and tried to sell them.

So yes, the government literally twisted their arms and forced them to loan at sub-prime rates.

It's good to know we agree on business regulation then...less regulation is better...I do wonder what you think is different concerning the financial market than any other market? I see the financial market as just another market. Banks can make loans to who they like etc etc, and fail if they make bad loans. We are all free to choose our banks just as any other business. The only difference I really see is the Fed is the central bank where no other industry has that. Do you see any other difference? I wonder for the sake of argument because if regulation hurts business in other markets, why would it be different here.

oh and...go read Karl Marx or something...(rolls eyes)

You're going to need to provide a link for the CRA bill because when I google it I just get Canada Revenue Agency stuff and bills from the 1700s.

I don't consider banking to be similar to say: teddy bear factories or water and sewer companies. Banking should not be a free enterprise (anyone can open a flipping bank) type of thing in the same way that hospitals should not be free enterprise. You can see the difference correct?

I'm not a Marxist... but you are an economic libertarian. Perhaps you could recommend some Chomsky instead.

CRA of 1977, before it focused so much on low/middle income households: http://www.fdic.gov/...00-2515.html#6500hcda1977

Current one: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/...tle12/12cfr25_main_02.tpl

Meandering summary of 1995 proposal and purpose: http://www.gpo.gov/...4/pdf/95-10503.pdf#page=1

That 95 one is hard to track down...I know I have before.

basically it comes down to this: Banks got a rating based on their "community development", which included lending to low income housing and lending to "people of color". If their rating wasn't high enough the OCC has the option of what to do, though I know I read in there at some previous time I looked at it that the SEC or some other agency could stop a bank from acquiring assets if their rating wasn't high enough. So banks decided to make subprime loans to qualify and then packaged them away to reduce their risk.

Those other markets only seem different because of how we perceive things. You open a bank, why would anyone give you money? Not anyone can open a bank because you need credibility to get anyone to give you their money. If I opened a "bank" and started telling people I was giving 10% APR if they gave me their money, would they do it? I know I wouldn't give someone else my money without reason to believe I would see it again.

the guy typing in all caps is making some great points.

Dissident: Highly recommend you read Reckless Endangerment for more on how the CRA and Fannie/Freddie helped cause the whole housing mess.

1) Argentina is a great example of a country doing well after telling the IMF to pound sand.

2) Quit running that CRA nonsense. CRA loans outperform private loans 100% of the time, despite continued Republican lies to the contrary. Default rates are the single metric by which the health of pools of loans are measured, and CRA loans are the best performers - period. CRA loans aren't just handed out - you have to be prime to get one.

3) Banks aren't forced to give out loans - the definition of their business is they give every loan they possibly can, and then at the end of the day they borrow overnight to maintain ratios. Loans aren't given from cash-on-hand.

thanks for the links CK. Ill make sure to read up on those so I can be a little more informed and give me a little more reason to be enraged by it. Why aren't you enraged? Clearly the outcome here was not optimal, not a one time thing... It was predicted before it happened and ignored. I guess there is less profit in playing safe.

Now I get to link some chomsky for you. If I gotta read, so do you.

Diss I'm not enraged because it is human nature that happened. It is inevitable when politicians are elected by a popular vote and passing a law gets them more votes despite kicking the payment plan down the road. It's currently happening again, just not with the housing market. Instead we have our government creating a monetary bubble because it is keeping the economy afloat. As we speak our Congress is talking of passing QE3, which has the fed fuse a bunch more money into the economy just to keep it from dropping back into a recession. Is that a long term solution? Where does this money from from? etc etc...

All in all, it boils down to this for me on all these bubbles. Capitalism naturally corrects for bubbles because people won't buy something if it costs too much, however anything the government is involved in cannot auto-correct. Price fixing is a perfect example where if they set the price too high, nobody buys the product and too low nobody produces it, thereby they must be perfect. Even then the market is constantly changing and a price fix cannot possibly keep up. I use price fixing because it can easily stand for anything that is fixed by government. Education costs, interest rates that are fed fixed, meddling in industries to reward or punish certain behaviors, etc etc...

If you think of government as a monopoly of a business, which it is, then how can we trust them anymore than any other business? The only difference in my opinion is the government has the law on their side, thereby giving them more leeway in terms of forcing their will on the public. As it gets bigger, their power to meddle only grows and business-government collusion only gets worse.

I just had to get the 100th post.

Should count as two bonus posts though...