Kill the american disease. Just when we thought it was safe to go back in the water we had one of our senior politicians call for dismantling the fabric of our society. Not because we were overspending but because he saw Europe and thought he should make some sage comments regarding their problems. We don't want to catch the Europen disease but neither do we want to seccombe to the american disease.. We must kill this disease that eminates from america that thinks that people are cattle, that the law of the jungle rules, that the rich and the middle class should not pay their fair share
http://http://www.smh.com.au/opinion...420-1xcn1.html

I know Jonathan Tasini ;he's the clown who sued Huffpo in a frivious law suit. He blogged there for free ,venting his anti-American spleen ;and then decided that when Huffpo was sold ,he was entitled to a cut in the action. It would be as if one of usedemanded compensation from AMHD when they profit from their business model. Typical lefty ,wanting something for nothing.
What was his stake ? He was not under contract as a paid reporter. Had
Huffpo gone belly up he would've assumed none of the risks . Yet he sued for a slice of the company's profits.
Well now it appears that he has relocated to Australia where he has found a new audience evidently . For his sake ,I hope he learned a basic lesson. You only get paid for what you do if there is a contractual arrangement in advance... some basic capitalism for the dope .

Who?? Some nobody or other, does he have a degree from some unknown second rate institution, I was certainly not referring to some american idiot, although I cited his article I don't know whether he has arrived here or not. I was in fact referring to our own worthy Joe Hockey, the attack dog of the Liberal opposition and shadow treasurer, who has decided to make policy on the run and attack our system in order to curry favour in of all places London. There is a common theme sung by the right these days that "entitlements" are too expensive and should not be wasted upon the masses and neither should they be provided to the rich. Now the second sentiment I agree with but attacking those who have neither the ability to defend themselves or who placed these entitlements in the public eye from afar is pure cowardice.

But the point is well made, the american disease is the idea that no one should get anything from government

Quote:

---

But the point is well made, the american disease is the idea that no one should get anything from government

---

And that is of course the strawman . You won't find anyone on the right who believes in the social Darwinism that the left claims is our position.

Hold on a minute Tom you are telling me you don't believe in the free market, in profits before entitlements, in some sort of capitalistic utopia on the banks of the Potomac. Perhaps you believe in the cornucopia of capital pouring its largesse upon the faithful presided over as it happens by the gnomes of Zurich. It is a phantasy Tom and you should have realised it by now, the American superman is dead Tom he will not rescue you from the fabianist conspiracy

I don't believe in anything that could be called a utopia on this earth. That pursuit is the position of the left. Utopianism is the ideological and doctrinal foundation for statism.

Yes Tom I know you don't like the idea of sharing

My sharing is more moral because it is voluntary.

Well Tom the day will come when you learn that it takes more than just keeping it to yourself and your select group of needies

Again a strawman. I have written consistently here that there should be a safety net.

I see " fair share " as a percent income contributed . You see it as a percent left after confiscation . If you were being honest with us you would be telling us the maximum amt of our wealth we are allowed to keep. If you were saying everyone should contribute the same percentage then I'd believe you when you talk of fairness . But what you really believe in is an unfair tax rate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I see " fair share " as a percent income contributed . You see it as a percent left after confiscation . If you were being honest with us you would be telling us the maximum amt of our wealth we are allowed to keep. If you were saying everyone should contribute the same percentage then I'd believe you when you talk of fairness . But what you really believe in is an unfair tax rate.

---

I think you are verballing me there Tom there is a big difference between the individual tax rate and a fair share of income arising from the nation's activities. For you the equation is how much the government takes, for me it is what opportunity the government provides. So if I will pay the same tax rate as you for a given amount of income this is fair, but if you are able to manipulate your income so you pay less this is unfair. In the same way if you can exploit circumstance to obtain extra income while I must earn a substandard minimum wages this is unfair. I could see you howl if someone suggested you should pay a flat rate tax of 20% with no deductions while at the same time the government lifted the minimum wage by 25% so the poor person could also pay the tax. How about if we change the equation and lift the rate to 33.3% with the poor receiving a 50% increase in the minimum wage to meet the tax, no Tom a sliding scale tax rate is a better fairer option because the poor only pay that rate when they receive the income. To increase their income to your level would bankrupt the nation

Two points . I am fully in favor of a flat tax or around 15 % . If the government cannot provide it's enumerated powers with that much revenue then we need different managers of the government .
The other point is that I'm against the minimum wage because it squeezes low skill and youth workers out of the market. That is just a fact. You see ;your method of restricting jobs and giving government handouts instead of benefitting the poor makes them permanent wards of the state. Minimum wage is just another example of liberal good intentions gone bad. Right now the workers with the highest unemployment rates are the unskilled and the workers entering the job market. Do you think that increase in minimum wage helped them ? No way.. it probably cost 300,000 entry-level jobsfor young workers. Trust me on this . Let's go to the extreme . Anyone in NY who makes less than $15 an hour is struggling . Should the state then raise the rate that high ? If they did ,there would be a devastating impact on the entry level job market. But not to worry ;all those unskilled workers can get on that government hand out gravy train.

It happened in the American Samoa where cost of living is less. They enacted the new Federal min wage laws there ,and the result was massive layoffs in the tuna canning industry. But not to worry ;all those unemployed Samoans got 99 weeks of unemployment benefits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

two points . I am fully in favor of a flat tax or around 15 % . If the government cannot provide it's enumerated powers with that much revenue then we need different managers of the government .
The other point is that I'm against the minimum wage because it squeezes low skill and youth workers out of the market. That is just a fact. You see ;your method of restricting jobs and giving government handouts instead of benefitting the poor makes them permanent wards of the state. Minimum wage is just another example of liberal good intentions gone bad. Right now the workers with the highest unemployment rates are the unskilled and the workers entering the job market. Do you think that increase in minimum wage helped them ? No way..it probably cost 300,000 entry-level jobsfor young workers. Trust me on this . Let's go to the extreme . Anyone in NY who makes less than $15 an hour is struggling . Should the state then raise the rate that high ? If they did ,there would be a devastating impact on the entry level job market. But not to worry ;all those unskilled workers can get on that government hand out gravy train.

It happened in the American Samoa where cost of living is less. They enacted the new Federal min wage laws there ,and the result was massive layoffs in the tuna canning industry. But not to worry ;all those unemployed Samoans got 99 weeks of unemployment benefits.

---

Tom you can't take outcomes in a microeconomy and say the same applies in your job market. Let me give you our example, our minimum adult wage is something above $15 an hour, we permit youth entry level wages to be lower so that youth is not disdvantaged. But the minimum adult wage prevents exloitation. Has this destroyed our economy, no in fact our unemployment rate is 5%. You see Tom you have to be more open about how things operate, you cannot set an entry level wage for youth and say this is the minimum for adults. That is pure stupidity. Employers make their own choices about how many youth and adults they need. The samoans were being exploited but implementing american minimums there was a mistake and the situation needed a more long term approach rather than the ham fisted approach used. What should have happened in Samoa was a labour agreement where increased wages were traded off against productivity gains and perhaps adjustments in employment levels, not just pricing the industry out of existence.

Let me give you another example in my town McDonalds pays youth $2 an hour more than its rival Pizza across the road. This has nothing to do with the adult minimum wage which both organisations must meet. Is there a shortage of kids for either establishment, no, and what I have observed is that adult employment is becoming more prevelent in these organisations. If your theorum were true, adults would have priced themselves out of the market

I can appreciate the logic of your arguments Clete, but forcing American companies to lower there profit margins by paying its workers fairly,or paying higher taxes, fairly or not, only sends those companies to foreign shores where cheap labor, and sweat shops are allowed.

Conservatives also say that everyone paying the same percentage of taxes is fair, but that only works if everyone's wages were equal, or the math doesn't work at all. But they care little for such facts.

They practice selective accounting that favors a few, while extracts money from the many. They make more poor people, yet holler the poor is to dependent on the government. I mean imagine if they held employees to a set work week, and not layoff half the company and extend the work week for those that are left working.

More for less is the business model, and less to share the pie with is the road to riches. Just saying though, what do you call such greedy b@stards, who take every advantage they can get, yet demonize the ones who need a safety net? A net they have no intention of maintaining, but see that's as money to take for themselves also.

The conservative experiment has failed all but the few, and people are waking up to that fact. Even hard core conservatives who are finding the safety net is no place for decent folks to be. And that voting for a plutocrat is to vote against your own hope of self respect.

At least the ones who can do real math. Take note Clete, empty promises and flawed logic, often leads to decisions based on fear, and hides a very selfish agenda. Real math, and real logic is the truth.

Tal I know the truth and the truth is fairness wins out in the end. Our nations, although having common roots, have a very different ethos and you have to wonder why. Your nation was founded by eletists whose idea was you can only have what you make for yourself, thus they would enslave many and that idea that low income workers equal wealth pervails. My nation as founded on the back of convicts who sought justice and fairness because they were given harsh treatment for petty crimes and were even political prisioners. When they were released from their slavery they didn't treat others this way but founded a fairer society where jack is as good as his master and no man was a slave to another.

Things have changed a lot in our history Clete, and to be sure we are still a very young growing nation going through growing pains but still steadily growing. To think we are not capable of adjusting to changing situations would be a mistake. We all here have differing opinions of how best to adjust, but we will adjust, and continue to improve as we face our problems, maybe slowly, but steadily. So let me correct your thinking we have common roots because we don't, that's why we are a melting pot for many roots.

Our diversity brings many diverse problems.

There are always problems that nations face, all of them, even yours, none of us is that perfect nor will ever be. Thinking you have grown enough, and have no reason to keep improving would be a big mistake for any nation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Things have changed a lot in our history Clete, and to be sure we are still a very young growing nation going thru growing pains but still steadily growing. To think we are not capable of adjusting to changing situations would be a mistake. We all here have differing opinions of how best to adjust, but we will adjust, and continue to improve as we face our problems, maybe slowly, but steadily. So let me correct your thinking we have common roots because we don't, thats why we are a melting pot for many roots.

Our diversity brings many diverse problems.

There are always problems that nations face, all of them, even yours, none of us is that perfect nor will ever be. Thinking you have grown enough, and have no reason to keep improving would be a big mistake for any nation.

---

Tal you miss what I'm saying, our nations were founded on immigration, sure we have grown in diversity over time, this is what I mean by common roots, initially Britisth but diversifying with acceptance of others but the greatest divergence is that slavery and the thinking behind it took root in your nation, however in mine a much older ethos had evolved and rather than losing that this nation embraced it. 40,000 years taught the inhabitants of this land to share. Sure we all have problems, we still haven't fully embraced that older ethos because those common roots shout at us, but our problems are very different to yours because we no longer debate whether solving the national deficit should be defered because the pill is too bitter to swallow for some. We have even said, we will not accept that some people live in poverty we will intervene in what is going on in their communities at a very different level, not as a macro issue to be debated in a do nothing parliament but as a micro issue to be managed on a daily basis. We have been called racists for this, but we will not have their disease permiate our communities, not an issue of racism but of social order. We don't have to give everything a PC double name, There is one race who inhabits this continent, no matter where they or their parents were born. Entirely different thinking, I have no reason to refer to a person's race or origin in ordinary conversation

You haven't done bad with 20 million people Clete. There is much for your island to be proud of, but don't be a snob though, as we shouldn't compare our respective country. Our diversity goes a lot further than the British. I don't miss your point, we just have differing perspectives, and the freedom to express them.

I couldn't get your column to load but nice to know we're spreading a disease. We love you, too.