Snobike Mike
Banned
I did, but it wasn't what you wanted to hear so you dismissed it or can't understand it! either way
Please refer to the post as I must have missed it for which I apologize.
I did, but it wasn't what you wanted to hear so you dismissed it or can't understand it! either way
So you agree with me now. Good!
Bingo!
greed and corruption, looking out for their own best interest, **** the rest of the people/country
On the concept of the need for competent government absolutely. On the rest, nice obfuscation/avoidance..... Care to comment on the balance?
Just to be perfectly clear, I would not support any higher taxes here in Canada with our current government. They have repeatedly proven themselves to be incapable of organizing a one car parade.
Anyhow.. to which balance are you referring?
Yes, because the left has no greed nor corruption........
And by the way, it is the very nature of the capitalist free market concept that created the wealth that is now being "redistributed" to those "poor people". If you didn't have that you wouldn't have had the economic engine to create the wealth in the first place so you end up with a catch 22......
You argue the extreme, which is indefensible, to try to make your point, however:
1) no one has said that the left has NO greed or corruption, but probably less because big business is going to support and lobby the right.
2) I am not against capitalism, it just needs government harnessing so that social responsibility is not lost. Capitalism as a system has no morals. It's sole driving force is profit for investors. Nothing wrong with that but that's where government agencies come in to enforce social and environmental responsibility.
Yes, because the left has no greed nor corruption........
And by the way, it is the very nature of the capitalist free market concept that created the wealth that is now being "redistributed" to those "poor people". If you didn't have that you wouldn't have had the economic engine to create the wealth in the first place so you end up with a catch 22......
The balance of my questions about your statements.
All you did in quoting my entire post is to say we agree, when the only thing we appear to agree on is the need for competent government (and only now have you stated you wouldn't want more taxes with our current gubment, to which I would say we also agree).
I still think your hypothetical "i give you more tax" idea is dumb because it doesn't resemble the Norwegian system at all. So to answer your question of how would I like it? I would not. It's not just the minimum wage that is higher in Norway, it's all wages. It is a radically different system there that is very difficult to compare to ours or the Americans'.
I think raising the minimum wage here is dumb without a radical change in our political ideology. I have my doubts if that is even possible, but who knows..
I've seen what a reasonably competent government can do and it only makes me embarrassed to be represented by ours. Billion dollar power plant debacles, hundreds of thousands of dollars for grocery store gift cards for the GTA, the financial stupidity of the Green Energy Act. I dream of something better. I dream of competence. I dream of a system where the wealth of the country is enjoyed by all of us and not just the companies that influence the government the most then do whatever they want.
Yes, because the left has no greed nor corruption........
And by the way, it is the very nature of the capitalist free market concept that created the wealth that is now being "redistributed" to those "poor people". If you didn't have that you wouldn't have had the economic engine to create the wealth in the first place so you end up with a catch 22......
How exactly am I arguing the extreme? I responded to your claim, not mine. And in your claim the implication was about the greed and corruption of the right, and I simply introduced Pot to Kettle.
Continuing in my response I pointed out that I fail to see how the capitalist system that you are in some respects denouncing, is the very engine that created the wealth that allows the redistribution of said wealth to support social programs, therefore conversely, if you didn't have the wealth you couldn't support the social programs (which continue to balloon beyond sustainable levels and to tie it all together, by taxing those that generate the wealth more is a dis-incentive to them while at the same time providing on-goingly increasing handouts to those that do not contribute because it's an incentive for them to not contribute).
That's a good video. I'd watch again just to here the soothing voice. But I need something explained to me. I see the staggering amount of wealth by the 1% and am not as upset as I feel I should be. In 1976 we didn't have the world economy as we do now. Earning a small profit from vast amounts of people is going to generate that kind of wealth. It's just pure numbers. If it's earned honestly while paying a good wage, why not?
never said they are not, I said the system needs to change so no one is paid, republicans or democrats. However I do believe Republicans are a lot more corrupt.Paulo, you're a smart man but dude, when you go off on Republicans and Democrat ramble, you sound so frigging brain washed...PLEASE read into it more.
You are being mentally lazy if you belive that the Democrats are not paid and bought off anymore than the Repubs...
never said they are not, I said the system needs to change so no one is paid, republicans or democrats. However I do believe Republicans are a lot more corrupt.
I read a lot about american politics, I am actually kind of obsessed with it, I find it very interesting, i wish i found Canadian politics as fascinating as I do American politics, fortunately we are a lot more boring over here.
The contentious point is "good wage".