It won't work because the American people are not going to put up with it, that's why. I've addressed the Bear-Stearns failure on the other post and you can read it there but I will also say here that CEO's now making 400 times what their bottom worker is earning need to shoulder the responsibility. It can't be pure capitalism and strictly the individuals private business until there is a need for a bailout and then socialist measures are relied upon to fix the situation.
We have had bailouts before, and yet here we are. The people do want a permanent government fix, short term bailouts have become acceptable sadly, but that does not translate into a mass denouncement of capitalist ideals by the American people in my mind.
As for salaries, I do not care that the CEO makes 400 times more than the bottom worker. The bottom worker is most likely a janitor making minimum wage who did not go to school (which was free). I wold openly argue that the CEO is 400 times more valuable than the janitor, and should be paid accordingly.
A welfare state? You told me you are in favour of a free and quality public education being provided for everyone. Most cons don't but you have made that compromise so why can't you take it a step further?
I will not take it a step further. I am in favor of having free public schools. That said you are not entitled to anything because of that education. You must make the most of your education and get a job on your own.
I am not convinced that all conservatives are against public school, from what I understand of the argument they are against the government mandating what public school they must attend. Their argument is to take the property tax that pays for schools in many places and instead have the parents use that to pay for school. The premise is the same, and creates the same problems I think as the system now, so I prefer to stick with what we have.
In my mind asking to take everything a "step" further is ridiculous. Why not take health laws a step further and ban smoking and alcohol. Why not take pollution prevention a step further and ban all driving?
NO, I didn't assume that the US lacks any ability to switch over to alternatives. I said that the US has not been proactive because the cons didn't believe in the fact that the US doesn't have an unlimited supply in the ground and the libs are preventing you from digging it up. Now they admit that there is little to be had and shale oil or offshore is being looked at seriously. That's something that came to light in as little as two months. Amazing! If you care to try to understand what I'm talkiing about wwhen I mention interdependeance, get the book and learn all about it. I've touched on it briefly on the other thread.
I am not going to read the book, I simply do not have the time right now with work. That said, I think the reason no one in the United States cared much about alternative energy is because the price of gas was $1.50, not because they were somehow unaware that one day oil would run out.
Oil shale and offshore are being looked at seriously because it is now potentially profitable. Oil shale is much more expensive to get out of the ground, so why bother when gas was $2.00? People knew about these deposits long before two months ago, there was just no incentive or reason to take the oil out of them before.
You need to reconcile the fact that the WHO has placed your country at #37 and all the presidential candidates spoke on and acknowledged a need to fix your ailing system. Please don't try to pretend that everything is fine. Although it's certainly true that the righties were lying about fixing it and some of the lefties could have been lying too, they all acknowledged it needed to be fixed because if they didn't the people would hang their political as-es out to dry.
It can be fixed. It should be opened back up to individual buyers. Not these government mandated HMO monopolies. That is bad for business and bad for prices.
And as I mentioned earlier, you need to explain how anyone in this country does not have access to healthcare, because as I explained they all do, or it was a personal choice that caused them to not get insurance.
All I need do with those comments is to tell you again to reconcile the truths I presented with your claims of everything being all o.k.
I am not sure what "truths" you presented, but I laid out how every American can have access to healthcare as it is, so what exactly is the huge "crisis".
It's good that you agree that your country has made no or little preparations for the oil crunch and I've dealt in more depth on the other thread on the fact that it's been the right who didn't believe in oil being in limited supply. It's the right which has continuously made the charge that the left has prevented new oil exploration and drilling. Isn't it funny how that is now lost in the shuffle! Now they can only squeal about ANWR even though it's a mere drop in the bucket. I think we're pretty much onside together on this issue in any case. I think you're wrong on Obama but I have nothing at stake to cause me to argue for him. Yes, you can drill yourself into more time but is it significant? I would suggest to you that you're playing politics if you try to suggest that it is.
I could care less what party decides to drill, but to assume you have to only go after alternative fuels (long term solutions) with no short term fixed (such a pumping) is moronic. Increasing the supply will lower the price in the short term, I fail to see how this is a bad idea. And for the record, the question of drilling in ANWR is not new, it has been debated in this country for well over a decade, it just has more importance placed on it now.
I can't quite understand how you can say that Obama can't end the war but you think he will anyway. You lost me on that one! As for the surge, there should have never been a war to start with and there shouldn't have been a surge either. Your country is immersed in an unwinnable war and is unable to leave Iraq in the foreseeable future because Iran will make Iraq part of their sphere of influence. They will not give up and there is good reason why the US can't possibly go to war with Iraq. I'm betting it won't happen because Iran will block Hormuz, among other strategic targets, drive up oil to aournd $12/gallon and your country is toast.
I mean that he should not end the war, but I fear that he will regardless. Arguing that there should never have been a surge because there should never have been a war is lunacy. We have to accept the fact that regardless of
if there should or should be a war, there actually
is a war and how to win it needs to be addressed. I think McCain addressed that with the surge, while Obama has stuck to arbitrary timelines.
I've addresed them all too, especiallly your views on healthcare but I have neglected to comment on that fact that people are being bankrupted daily enmass for lack of appropriate insurance. There's a lot more to say if you choose to follow that line later.
People are bankrupted to because they lose their job, I suppose we should government mandate that no one can be fired right?
Don't worry, it won't happen and I've told you why. But you need to come to terms with the Iraqi government demanding a timeline. Their priority is now proving to be to rid their country of the occupation and being able to stand up with their own forces is secondary. Nay, not even a consideration when the truth is told. Obama's talk with Maliki put the lid on that malarkey yesterday and it's going to make that old rhetoric a laughing matter. Your country just needs to be creative and force further occupation on the Iraqi people and it's government. Maliki will fold. Don't worry, it will be accomplished because it has to be.
Yes, Iraq has been calling for a timeline, but you will notice that Maliki then runs to the UN and asks for the mission to be extended. He is a politician as well, and there remains a lot of disagreement in the Iraqi government about the US troop presence. Maliki wants to keep his job, so he pushes for Iraq to take over, but at the same times knows that they cannot take over at this point, so then asks the UN to extend the mission and continues to talk about "conditions on the ground." He is balancing his own political situation.
