Well, aren't we having fun!
Thanks for starting to state your beliefs, GerPol. That makes it easier to understand where you are coming from. Please continue.
For the record, I think the war on drugs took over from prohibition as the force that built organized crime into what it is today. I agree that marijuana should be decriminalized, along with narcotics, etc. Addictions should be treated as the medical problems they are.
Some would say "But drug dealer are evil? We need sanctions against them." I say "Sure they're not nice guys. Why make it worth their while to push drugs?"
>Wake up ! welfare is for the needy.
I agree. Let's keep it that way. But I define needy perhaps a bit differently than you do. A person should not receive more in welfare than the lowest-paid person that still pays tax. In other words, a person should not be entitled to $26,000 in welfare benefits when a person making $20,000 has to pay tax. What you say? A person on welfare doesn't make $26K?
Try this:
A single mother with two kids gets $1200/mo. Her subsidized housing costs the state another $300/month. Free eyecare and other extended benefits add up to another $200/month. That's $1700/month take-home pay! A working person would have to make about $2200 to take home $1700. That's $26,400 / year.
What do I think of this? I think a working mother earning less than $26,000 shouldn't have to pay income tax, and the welfare mother shouldn't get a TV and couch paid for in addition to her monthly allowance. Does that sound fair to you? Or am I being cruel?
As for mental illness... don't get me started. Two of my relatives are on long term disability pensions for mental illnesses. If I didn't have an ambition to make more than $900/mo, I would try to get on. After all, one only needs to be depressed to qualify. If I was depressed, I wouldn't have the ambition to earn... oh, never mind.
To be serious, I think both of these peoples' mental illnesses are a result of the lack of control they felt they had over their lives. They were both self-employed, and both developed repetitive strain injuries. Both cited a run-around by WCB as factors that sapped their motivation. And they were both resentful at all the endless regulation that took up time that they should have applied to their businesses. The biggest single factor that prevented them from getting back on their feet, however, was the fact that the pension was the easy way out. I would have liked to have seen them empowered before it was too late. It's too late.
>Luv my socialized medicine that saved my life twice
It also saved my life more than once. But unsocialized medicine would have done the same, with a shorter wait in the emergency room.
That said, I can live with a publicly funded health care system, at least for the 'needy.' I do not completely buy into the universality philosophy, but if others insist on it, I can abide by it. I don't like the idea of state ownership of the institutions, out of principle. The fact is, doctors and nurses already work on a for-profit basis. The institutions don't. Why not? Profit is not evil. It is just reward for a job well done.
BTW, did you know the term 'Medi-Care' is an American (i.e., USA) term? There is no medicare in Canada, only in the U.S!
>socialist, naturalist, nationalist, centralist, absolutely a liberal
I am also a naturalist. I would much rather be out fishing or birdwatching than typing on SI. Hmm. I think I know what I'm doing today after my Rotary Club fund-raising event.
If you are a nationalist in the sense of not believing in free trade, etc, then, sir, we cannot be friends. Nationalism, protectionism, isolationism and similar dogmas that restrict the right of people around the world to trade and invest freely, are crimes against humanity. They are among the primary causes of continuing third world poverty and the inequitable distribution of food in this world, resulting in millions of deaths each year. There is no greater evil that can be formulated in government policy.
The term liberal once meant distrust of big government - ala Jefferson. There's another term that got corrupted over time.
What is a centralist? Does that mean moderate socialist, as in wanting to maintain the status quo funding for health care and education? Given that the Alliance wants to spend more on health care and education, I guess that means you are somewhere to the right of the Alliance. Now I'm really confused. <g>
One of the most enlightening observations I have made is that free-market, freedom loving, small government fiscal conservatives are generally a cheery and energetic lot, while socialists tend to be depressed and rage against the 'injustices' of the world.
>any one else making over a MM bucks should be lined up on the edge of lake Michigan...
Why? Is money that distasteful to you? A person making a million dollars a year would supply a total of $300,000/y to fund your beloved programs, even under my reduced tax regime. It would require 100 working poor to pay the same tax at current rates. I would much rather see far more people making a million dollars per year. In fact, I would like very much to be one of them. It's OK if I never get there, but it's nice to dream.
By the way, much of the liberal cabinet makes that much through the companies they own. Did you ever care to ask what Paul Martin or Cretin is worth? By your reasoning, they should be first in line. Do you think a Wall Street lawyer like Martin is there for a MP's salary?
-g |
