Do Republicans think it helps to have such radical spokespeople?

[Trimdingman]

I assume you have the ability to back up all of those statements...or are you dealing in speculation again? I would also remind you that many 'intellectuals' are members of the middle class.

[Trimdingman]

I didn't say that all of the middle class was on the right, just that the bulk of them are.

[suv_guy_19]

I didn't say that all of the middle class was on the right, just that the bulk of them are.

 

 

I'm sure in the US that's true...In the country you live in, it may not be..and probably isn't.

Edited April 19, 2009 by suv_guy_19

[Edstock]

I didn't say that all of the middle class was on the right, just that the bulk of them are.

THAT's why Stevie has a minority government!

 

Aw, Trim, try to keep it real, please.

[Trimdingman]

THAT's why Stevie has a minority government!

 

Aw, Trim, try to keep it real, please.

 

Canada has so much government that all classes are represented there. I would kill for the kind of freedom that the US still enjoys. Unfortunately, that may not be for long. In Canada, if you want to get rid of government, all you have to do is move to somewhere remote. People who live in these places don't miss government one bit.

[suv_guy_19]

I would kill for the kind of freedom that the US still enjoys.

 

How was your freedom affected today? Mine was just fine. I got in my car, and drove three hours away. I had breakfast with my family before I went, and now I lay here using my computer...because I want to. There's very little I'm no allowed to do. You know nothing of oppression.

[Ron W.]

How was your freedom affected today? You know nothing of oppression.

 

 

Not true

I have to stop at the stop signs

I have to pay taxes

I have to go really really fast when the light turns yellow

I can't eat my neighbors dog

I can't smoke in my mothers house

on and on and on it's all the governments fault

:stats:

 

:shades:

[suv_guy_19]

I have to go really really fast when the light turns yellow

 

 

That one is the most true true...:P. Really though, who stops at stop signs?

[RangerM]

How was your freedom affected today?

Speaking for myself.......

 

I'm more concerned how our childrens' freedom will be affected tomorrow, by the actions of today.

[RangerM]

How was your freedom affected today? Mine was just fine. I got in my car, and drove three hours away. I had breakfast with my family before I went, and now I lay here using my computer...because I want to. There's very little I'm no allowed to do. You know nothing of oppression.

 

Since this pertains to your native country, it might be worth a read.

Pierre Lemieux is an economist whose most recent book, Comprendre l'economie, just won the prestigious Prix Turgot in Paris. When it comes to guns, he's a hobbyist, not a lobbyist, but in his spare time he has been trying to make the authorities comprehend something about the relationship between public safety and his love life. Not because he thinks there's a nexus, but because the government does.

 

Before renewing his gun permit in 2007, the authorities decided to inquire into Lemieux's bedroom history. Did he divorce anyone in the last two years? Did he break up with a girlfriend? If yes, use a separate sheet to explain.

[suv_guy_19]

Any Canadian can own basically any gun. They simply have to have the proper licenses...and they can't carry it with them without properly storing it. Unlike in the US, gun ownership is a privilege here, not a right. If he doesn't want to fill out the form....then his privilege can be taken away. There are other things that can't be taken away, but there is no right to bear arms....but as it stands now and probably always will....we can still own them.

[stephenhawkings]

Not true

I have to stop at the stop signs

I have to pay taxes

I have to go really really fast when the light turns yellow

I can't eat my neighbors dog

I can't smoke in my mothers house

on and on and on it's all the governments fault

:stats:

 

:shades:

you don't have to do those items, it is just socially acceptable to do them.

i guess with out socialism, at the base level, it can be a lonely, and dangerous world, or at least you could smoke at moms house!

[Trimdingman]

One measure of how much freedom you have is the amount of tax you pay. People who pay no tax, because they don't make much money, and are subsidized by taxpayers are also not free. They, in turn, are subsidizing their employers by working for slave wages. Tax-payers are also subsidizing these employers. The left depends on this lop-sided tax system to ensure votes. The "social safety net" is owned by the government. People who depend on it depend on the government. People who are at the mercy of the government are not free. If you have to give 1/2 of your income to the government, you are 50% free. If the government takes 51% or more of your income you are officially a slave.

[suv_guy_19]

One measure of how much freedom you have is the amount of tax you pay.

 

Well if that's your measure, we have more freedom than most western countries.

[sprinter]

94 Years of Serfdom by Paul Craig Roberts

 

http://lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts265.html

[grbeck]

Well, as we saw with the gang that brought you ENRON, they sure were able to pass on price increases somehow.

 

Anyway, I sure hope the anti-nuke crowd SFU. The US and Canada need new reactors, whether privately owned or publicly owned.

 

Because California botched its attempt at "deregulation," which only succeeded in giving it the worst of both worlds. Pennsylvania deregulated its utilities, and we didn't suffer those price increases, even though Enron executives visited the state on the hunt for "opportunities."

[grbeck]

First, you must have allot of time on your hands? Secondly, I only wished you could have stayed on topic. You cite the stock market and Cato as evidence substantiating your claims, but pray tell, what does the S&P 500 have anything at all to do with this argument? Supply theory is based on the premise that if you cut taxes then the money saved will be re-invested creating more wealth and ultimately the money lost on taxes will be recouped via more growth. A smaller percentage but a bigger pie - sort of speak. Next, Cato is filled with former Reagan officials, if I am not mistaken; a key Reagan official was the director of Cato for this publication. Regardless, it's a libertarian organization, hardly a reference for nonbiased research.

 

You're critical of my lack of facts in my argument, ok; I'll go along with that, at least facts not presented. Alan Binder was the economists I was referring too, his work and many others have shown that the premise failed. A meta-analysis was done and it came out to a 0.9% decline.

 

It's why I rarely post anymore, most people have closed minds on broader issues. They're even suggesting it's genetics now. Regardless of the reasons why people are unable to see the forest and not just some trees is a mystery to me.

 

And yet you quote Alan Binder, and here's what I found by doing a little research on his background:

 

Blinder has served as the Deputy Assistant Director of the Congressional Budget Office, on President Bill Clinton's Council of Economic Advisors, and as the Vice Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System from 1994 to 1996. He was an adviser to John Kerry during Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign.

 

That's a real non-partisan source you quoted there...I guess the open-minded view is that Republicans and libertarian-leaning organizations are automatically suspect, while those who favor Democrats are impartial and rely solely on the facts. Thanks for Monday's chuckle...

[Trimdingman]

Well if that's your measure, we have more freedom than most western countries.

 

 

We do have more freedom than places like Sweden and France. America was created by people who wanted more freedom than they had in Europe. If you were to compare the government with the Mafia, the Mafia is better. The Mafia Don only wants to "wet his beak". The government wants to "take a bath". Taxes should be more in line of a few hours' work a week. Then, if you wanted, you would only have to work a few days a week. This would provide work for others. Instead, we have to work double to pay taxes, while other people have no work, and collect a check from the government courtesy of us. Of course, if you were to add it up, there would be a lot of that money missing.

[Mark B. Morrow]

Because California botched its attempt at "deregulation," which only succeeded in giving it the worst of both worlds. Pennsylvania deregulated its utilities, and we didn't suffer those price increases, even though Enron executives visited the state on the hunt for "opportunities."

 

 

PA's deregulation hasn't taken effect yet. It will be interesting (and hopefully not too expensive) to see what will happen once the deregulation is fully in effect.

[RangerM]

Any Canadian can own basically any gun. They simply have to have the proper licenses...and they can't carry it with them without properly storing it. Unlike in the US, gun ownership is a privilege here, not a right. If he doesn't want to fill out the form....then his privilege can be taken away. There are other things that can't be taken away, but there is no right to bear arms....but as it stands now and probably always will....we can still own them.

 

While I cannot deny your assertion that Canadian gun ownership is not considered a right (because I don't know what your Constitution says), I do find it interesting the level of governmental intrusion that you're willing to put up with for a privelege.

 

I wonder if your attitude might be a little different if the government was asking a similar question ("Have you recently broken up with your girlfriend?") if you were applying for a driver's license.

[suv_guy_19]

While I cannot deny your assertion that Canadian gun ownership is not considered a right (because I don't know what your Constitution says), I do find it interesting the level of governmental intrusion that you're willing to put up with for a privelege.

 

I wonder if your attitude might be a little different if the government was asking a similar question ("Have you recently broken up with your girlfriend?") if you were applying for a driver's license.

 

Driving is also a privilege. If the person who the articles is about is worried, he can launch a complaint with either the court of the Human Rights Commission.

[RangerM]

Driving is also a privilege. If the person who the articles is about is worried, he can launch a complaint with either the court of the Human Rights Commission.

He is suing, to retain his rights privelege. He shouldn't have to answer such private (and unrelated) questions. Neither should you.

[methos]

And yet you quote Alan Binder, and here's what I found by doing a little research on his background:

 

Blinder has served as the Deputy Assistant Director of the Congressional Budget Office, on President Bill Clinton's Council of Economic Advisors, and as the Vice Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System from 1994 to 1996. He was an adviser to John Kerry during Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign.

 

That's a real non-partisan source you quoted there...I guess the open-minded view is that Republicans and libertarian-leaning organizations are automatically suspect, while those who favor Democrats are impartial and rely solely on the facts. Thanks for Monday's chuckle...

 

 

First you make a good point. but I didn't use Binder for his views or opinions. I used him as a reference for what he based those views on. There is a distinction. They did a lot of research during and after Reagan implemented his tax-cuts. The whole point was the money lost in revenue would eventually be replaced - like I said in my earlier post - a smaller percentage but a bigger pie. It didn't work, supply actually decreased by 0.9%. I would post the paper supporting that but I don't have access off-campus. If the need persists, I will post it in two weeks when I get back to school.

 

It's the reason they no longer use that term - it failed. Now, the proponents thought that there were many reasons why it failed and it deserved another chance, even though the vast majority of economists thought the theory "a free lunch".

 

Proponents derided the static model used in testing the theory long-term, so they came up with the "dynamic model" to test it. The CBO along with other research groups published the outcome using that model; by the way, they were handpicked supply-side proponents in charge of the testing. The results, well, they were a dismal failure. Why? Because there is no free lunch - HELLO!! Even the Wall Street Journal in 2003 declared it dead.

 

Why do people persist in its use? The reasoning, and the ONLY reasoning is to starve the beast, sort of speak. Even Milton Freidman suggested it's the only purpose. They're to gutless to get rid of social security and other "New Deal" programs, so they'll do it anyway possible. They have the right and should be encouraged to vote any way they see fit, I just can't stand the back-door nature of these tactics.

 

I hate taxes, who doesn't? If I thought for one minute that paying less would result in more for everyone then why wouldn't I support that? I would love to see ANY numbers that support this theory - I really would. Hell, I am far from any expert, and it's been some time since I took some classes on it. We went over the numbers and the research in detail, perhaps we missed something. But please, don't show me editorials or opinions, show me numbers. This theory was put in practice - twice. Show how for every dollar cut, a dollar is made up in revenue. It's not there, it does not occur. If you want less taxes, hey who don't, but whose going to pay for this massive deficit? The vast majority of which was derived under the two presidents that implemented this nonsense.

 

EDIT: Krugman put out a book titled "Pedaling Prosperity". I have yet to read it, but will Wednesday. It goes over this nonsense in detail. Sure, Krugman is a liberal, but a NL. He went against Clinton when asked if health care would explode the deficit. It's the reason he wasn't appointed for a high ranking position. He derided Bush, as he is critical of Obama. If anything, regardless of his views, he tells it like it is. Conservatives use this nonsense to get votes. That is its primary purpose. It won't shave the deficit, but it will and did get them elected.

Edited April 20, 2009 by methos

[suv_guy_19]

He shouldn't have to answer such private (and unrelated) questions. Neither should you.

 

 

And it will be up to the courts to decide whether or not the question violates Section 7 (because it seems it might apply) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I withhold judgment until they make their decision.

 

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Edited April 20, 2009 by suv_guy_19

[RangerM]

And it will be up to the courts to decide whether or not the question violates Section 7 (because it seems it might apply) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I withhold judgment until they make their decision.

 

I read the charter. Paying particular attention to Section 7, what do you think? What are the principals of fundamental justice as they apply to requiring a person to explain his private relationships, in order to own a gun? Does owning a gun apply as a means of retaining "security of the person"?

 

Have confidence in your own judgement, and don't wait for someone else's opinion. Either way (for or against), you are entitled to (and should) have your own. You are always entitled to change your mind later.