Quote:

---

talk is cheap

---

What's a cheap argument is citing polls to validate an ideological debate.

The President told Chuck Todd that it was a bad idea to raise taxes during a recession . Was he lying then or now ?

Why does he want to raise taxes for anyway ? What's the matter ? Didn't Madame Mimi Pelosi's brother get enough taxpayer money during the last giveaway to green energy ?

Unless you address the issues of exclusions, deductions, exemptions and credits ,the debate over tax rates is meaningless. You know as well as I do that the Warren Buffets of the world pay tax accountants big money to avoid paying a $ billion in taxes to the government. So his sanctimoniously hypocritical call for an increase in his tax rates is BS .
The Dems couldn't care one bit about 'creating new jobs'. All they want to do is expand the nanny state and make more and more Americans dependent on their largess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

All they want to do is expand the nanny state and make more and more Americans dependent on their largess.

---

I've asked you before about this supposed "Nanny state" term that you keep using. I asked here and got no response. So I'll ask again I guess.
What you call the "nanny state" is just the way your country is and will be, it's not a recent occurrence and it's not going back to some idealistic 19th century state. Is there any country in the world that you don't consider to be a nanny state?

Yawn... I'm supposed to change my opinion on the slim argument that "that's the way it is "??
It's irrelevant if there are 1 or many countries that fits the model I envision... and you are wrong... as these large centralized Levithians crash under the weight of their obligations ,the socialistic model will be consigned to the dustbin of history.

Ok. :rolleyes:

I think government should be effective and efficient. And Flexible enough to enact strategies that benefit us all. I think the world is to complex to think the old ways of thinking and doing things is an answer for more complex problems. And its one thing to argue ideology, and quite another to live up to goals and values that serve all and not just the few.

The great lesson of the Civil War was if we don't work together to build together, we end up fighting each other and destroying the very thing we fight over. Whether you admit it or not, this is where we are yet again, repeating history, no not with guns and death, but with ideas and words.

The consensus seems to be one way, yet we do another, pandering to ideology, and self interest. Heck there is so much ideology already, that solutions cannot be reached or implemented fast enough to relieve the stress NOW.

As long as we are not flexible, or open to other ideas other than our own, we will never have solutions that work for us.

Making more poor people is hardly living up to the conclusion that "All men are created equal". And its not some people, but "WE the people". I submit to you Tom, that the nanny state you describe is but a result of putting the value on institutions, and not people, because that's the so called free market system, where some have an opportunity for riches, and some do NOT.

Go ahead, say how lazy they are and how hard you work for what you get to not be a part of the nanny state. But as I tell smoothy all the time, rhetoric, talk, and opinions are great for debate, but you still have to have a plan of action for reality.

That's what all the polls are showing, because that's the consensus on opinion. The polls say government is not popular, and republican law makers are sucking hind tit. Wonder why that is?

Quote:

---

Go ahead, say how lazy they are and how hard you work for what you get to not be a part of the nanny state.

---

I say nothing of the kind. I say your nanny state solutions don't work ;and instead of lifting people up it drags more people down.

I reject the premise that what I advocate "makes more poor people ". And I reject this model that defines people by class.

Quote:

---

The great lesson of the Civil War was if we don't work together to build together, we end up fighting each other and destroying the very thing we fight over. Whether you admit it or not, this is where we are yet again, repeating history, no not with guns and death, but with ideas and words.

---

I take a different lesson from the Civil War. The founders and the nation tried to live with the scourge of slavery as an institutional reality of the nation .And they did all types of compromises trying to preserve the nation with this blight . Eventually all this compromising did was prolong the inevidible .

Quote:

---

Eventually all this compromising did was prolong the inevidible .

---

I agree, just as all our compromising (or lack of it) is delaying the inevitable now, and that's some changes to our present institutions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

It's irrelevent if there are 1 or many countries that fits the model I envision....and you are wrong ....as these large centralized Levithians crash under the weight of their obligations ,the socialistic model will be consigned to the dustbin of history.

---

Hi Tom,

I don't know about that. The OZ Leviathan is doing well at the moment.

Tut

Tut you have the benefit of having a commodities export nation and a willing customer in the neighborhood. Plenty nations have thrived temporarily under such conditions ;and thus live under the illusion their system is sound , until the well runs dry. And I must caution you . Beware of the devil you are dancing with. We suffer for a negative trade imbalance with China ;but you are also vulnerable to the Chinese trade policies even though it temporarily favors your nation. I also caution that Red Julia's policies regarding carbon taxation will stick a knife in your economy.

I can't wait to see how the Chinese deal with inflation, and market corrections. And the bursting of the export bubble they are creating. No doubt they will drag smaller economies down with them.

Hope its televised.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Tut you have the benefit of having a commodities export nation and a willing customer in the neighborhood. Plenty nations have thrived temporarily under such conditions ;and thus live under the illusion their system is sound , until the well runs dry. And I must caution you . Beware of the devil you are dancing with. We suffer for a negative trade imbalance with China ;but you are also vulnerable to the Chinese trade policies even though it temporarily favors your nation. I also caution that Red Julia's policies regarding carbon taxation will stick a knife in your economy.

---

Hi Tom,

I guess we have been living this illusion since Federation. Don't underestimate the resourcefulness of OZ when it comes to competing in the world market place.Our political system has a history of not being stuck in limbo. We tend not to let ideology get in the way of practice.

I think this will prove to be the case when the carbon tax is implemented. Unfortunately, it is here to say. It will stay even if a Liberal government is elected. I am basing this claim on past history of controversial legislation. It may well be modified by incoming governments but I would be surprised if it didn't stay.We will make it work for us. Why? Because that's our tradition as a nation.

Tut

What better way to spur growth of alternative technologies for energy, than a carbon tax? Its an investment, for the future, though it will eventually de leverage many oil, and coal producers, because you will be more flexible and resistant to their energy pricing. Its not as far off as people think. Big Oil is resistance because it cuts into profits, and diverts it away from them. But they will get it.

Investment and flexibility are keys in the world market to be on top of changes that will surely occur, not just in politics, but in science. This is where the US, and many of the worlds largest economies are, caught between good science, and old politics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Investment and flexibility are keys in the world market to be on top of changes that will surely occur, not just in politics, but in science. This is where the US, and many of the worlds largest economies are, caught between good science, and old politics.

---

Hi Tal,

Interesting point you make about good science and old politics.In Australia we have a tradition of accepting the decisions of a previous governments and moving on.

The most obvious example that springs to mind is universal health care in Australia. One of the last acts of the Whitlam government was to somehow manage to get the legislation through. When Frazer won the election and took office he did virtually nothing but accept the legislation.

As I said before, accepting what has gone before seems to be an unwritten precedent in Australian politics. Examples of how this works can be historically seen on both sides of politics.

As far as universal health care is concerned; what can anyone do? We don't have a constitution to make a High Court challenge. Well, we do have a constitution, but it doesn't guarantee us much. The irony is that eventually universal health care became enshrined in the constitution.

My point is really not about good or bad science, right or wrong decisions. It is more about getting things done. If we had strong constitution then I doubt that we would have universal health care in the form we know it today. The legislation would probably still be subject to High Court challenges.

I think if there are too many ways and opportunities not to implement a legislation then in the end all you will ever get is a compromised position.

Tut

Tut some of our Government have made revolutionary changes. Health care, GST, open market, and some have had a good result, some have not. Once again we are in a state of flux but unlike some of our trading partners we have what people want. We may not be able to sell steel to the US but it is interesting, through the intermediary of China our goods are finding their way there and to many other places in the world. Soon I expect we will be driving Chinese cars built on the back of Australian iron and coal.

Successive governments however are wasting our opportunities by reducing individual tax and imposing taxes which hit industry. We will pay for these stupid decisions

Ah, but compromise yield results, and can be changed, or tweaked to IMPROVE and evolve as circumstances warrant. That's what I mean when I say government must be flexible. Once you get a structure in place, it can be improved on. Now the courts here can get in the way, but even that can lead to change, or innovation.

Your example of Universal health care resonates loudly here, as the compromised solution here was a blend of government/ private insurance coverage, because we have a very rich and powerful insurance lobby here, and the whole thing is going before our Supreme Court.

The funny part about that is the fight over one word, "mandate", and some think that if its unconstitutional to have mandated health care for all then you can have no gov/private health care period. One would hope the courts would be judicious, but after it was held that corporations are people to, then it open the doors for government to be bought and paid for by the ones that could afford it.

We the people became we the corporation. People sometimes don't accept change well or give up power easily. They certainly don't like to share or take responsibility when things go wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Ah, but compromise yield results, and can be changed, or tweaked to IMPROVE and evolve as circumstances warrant. Thats what I mean when I say government must be flexible. Once you get a structure in place, it can be improved on. Now the courts here can get in the way, but even that can lead to change, or innovation.

Your example of Universal health care resonates loudly here, as the compromised solution here was a blend of government/ private insurance coverage, because we have a very rich and powerful insurance lobby here, and the whole thing is going before our Supreme Court.

The funny part about that is the fight over one word, "mandate", and some think that if its unconstitutional to have mandated health care for all then you can have no gov/private health care period. One would hope the courts would be judicious, but after it was held that corporations are people to, then it open the doors for government to be bought and paid for by the ones that could afford it.

We the people became we the corporation. People sometimes don't accept change well or give up power easily. They certainly don't like to share or take responsibility when things go wrong.

---

Hi tal

I think our health care ysytem is not well understood. It too is a blend of public and private funding but the fundamentals are very different. The government took on the provision of basic medical care in exchange for a levy on personal income, there was no suggestion an employer should bare this cost, and in so doing also regulated the price of medical services. Doctors can charge whatever they want to but the public has a benchmark and so will moderate their consumption of these services accordingly. This has been highly effective with many health care providers accepting the government price. So we are not placed in the situation of not being covered at any time, but the more well funded among us have the option of additional health insurance. Underlying this has is a system of electronic payment which has simplified the interface between the providers, consumers and the payment for health services. A health care card is a defacto indentity card providing access to services and billing is simplified.

When you say mandate, I think we have turned the meaning of that word around. The government is seen as having an electoral mandate to implement its stated policy, therefore the function of the parliament is not to oppose that implementation but to modify and temper that implementation to obtain consensus. When a government implements an unmandated policy, ie; carbon tax, it will be opposed and overthrown, but a mandated policy will be left in place. Thus the health care system has been left largely unchanged for thirty years.

Unfortunately we just started on a path of Universal care and while there have been some general rule changes, it doesn't start until 2014, and already the monied interests are trying to repeal it out right.

A Supreme Court ruling is due next summer. All the Republican presidential candidates have made repeal their biggest campaign platform. They think everything should be privatized, and corporations should make their own rules and police themselves.

That includes Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. And the Pentagon. And Public Schools. They don't believe in government, and makes you wonder why they are running for office in the first place, since all the republican legislation has been to defund woman's health for those with inadequate, or no insurance, and make new anti abortion, anti worker, anti union laws instead of creating jobs like they ran on.

Talk about an agenda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Unfortunately we just started on a path of Universal care and while there have been some general rule changes, it doesn't start until 2014, and already the monied interests are trying to repeal it out right.

A Supreme Court ruling is due next summer. All the Republican presidential candidates have made repeal their biggest campaign platform. They think everything should be privatized, and corporations should make their own rules and police themselves.

That includes Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. And the Pentagon. And Public Schools. They don't believe in government, and makes you wonder why they are running for office in the first place, since all the republican legislation has been to defund womans health for those with inadequate, or no insurance, and make new anti abortion, anti worker, anti union laws instead of creating jobs like they ran on.

Talk about an agenda.

---

Hi Tal

The reality is, Tal, that politicians can only do what other politicians allow them to do. All the spruking does only one thing, it convinces a gullable electorate to vote for them. So what you have is the classic dicotamy, to which we in this country are also well used. You have a Congress of one persuasion and a Senate of another and apparently a President with a third.

We succeed in overcoming this little problem with a couple of simple mechanisms. Firstly the double disssolution, rarely used but often threatened, if legislation cannot get passed by negotiation, we tip the whole lot out on their ear and go to an election, the second, oft used, is that the bills are split and that which can pass does, and there is a third, much disliked, where the government of the day accepts that reason will prevail and the more draconian parts of the legislation are deleted. We don't have that interesting method you possess where the President can apparently pass legislation himself

I don't know what you have heard but the president can't pass anything. He can suggest but its up to the congress. He can sign or not sign, but it takes a majority of congress to over ride his veto.

We have gridlock because the house and senate are divided with repubs owning the house, and Dem's owning the senate.

We elect hose and senate every two years, and a president every four.

No system on earth is perfect, or we would all have the same perfect system. Ours works for us, but we Americans are a spirited vociferous bunch, and opinionated. And there are 360 million people who all think they are right. Coalitions and compromise takes time, to work through checks and balances and all that money.