We need to change like everyone else. The nations with the highest quality of life in the world are social democracies. Take Norway and Sweden for example. Their citizens are highly educated, have great healthcare, low crime, and low income inequality. Social democracies also have gun control (which proves that gun control lowers crime), abortion, universal healthcare (France is #1 in the world), no capital punishment, and Norway has gay marriage.
Doesn't this show anything?
By the way, a social democracy is not the same as a socialist state. So don't scream about how China disproves my point.
Education
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/26/education.rankings.reut/index.html
(look at rankings)
Crime Rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Map-w...
(notice how ours is comparable to a third world country due to lack of gun control)
Health Care
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
(We're with Slovenia and Costa Rica because of our backwards health care system)
Income Inequality
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/Gini_Coefficient_World_Human_Development_Report_2007-2008.png
(We're highest among developed nations)
Crime Rate link corrected:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Map-world-murder-rate.svg
If socialist policies don't work, then why do they rank higher than us?
I would like to know what he has done as a Jr. Senator, besides spend OVER HALF of his time in office promoting his book and running for president.
He has no REAL stance on the war, Oil, Taxes or Healthcare, in this world, actions speak much louder than words, so can someone provide HARD facts from the archives of the US government (it is public record), I dont wanna see the "True" statements from some in-duh-pendant Barak Obama Love fest.....
This is exactly what I expected. You cant provide the facts so you tell me to provide a. hard facts why McCain should be, and b. hard facts why he shouldnt be.
Why Cant Obama supporters answer with a straight answer...
Honestly, I do not think Obama has a chance of winning despite what people are saying. It seems as if even with the Republican's handicap and bad running of the economy that people will still ask for another 8 years of Bush. People seem to forget too easily how the last few years have been.
McCains pulled so much crap:
McCain graduating 5th from the bottom of his class (almost failing):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srbX26vp57c
McCain singing Bomb Iran:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAzBxFaio1I
McCain Chelsa Clinton is Ugly Comment:
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/7/5/00548.shtml
McCain calling the veitnamese Gooks:
http://www.commondreams.org/views/030200-104.htm
McCain's wife and drug addiction:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/10/18/drugs/
McCain giving up on his wife and divorcing her:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain
McCain cheating on his wife:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FK9FIf6_Rlw
More Of McCain's screwups:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/5/10929/36955/794/530090
McCain is considered to be very volatile and erratic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sB74dbAfrQs&feature=related
The K5 scandel etc...
Im only brushing the surface.
and shown an erratic personality, and yet despite this people point out that he was a prisoner and a hero of war. Does being taken prisoner and adopting a few children make you a qualified to be president if it results in you obtaining a temper, and an erratic personality (possibly PTSD)?
Then you laugh at how someone who is supposed to be a role model, and diplomatic calls the current presidential candidate's daughter 'ugly', or the Vietnamese 'Gooks'.
Look I understand that McCain was taken prisoner, however, does that in any way or form qualify him? Do a few good acts compensate for his erratic behavior? on a world scale does McCain's behavior translate into responsibility? It does not to me. I cannot see how it does for you. Why are you voting for McCain?
Obama's policies are superior in almost every way. His diplomatic policies, his healthcare plan, his green energy plan, plus he has so many backers and people willing to cooperate with him. It shows that he can get things done through influence...
The way he has run his campaign speaks loads about his organizational ability. Also, Obama has a lot of guts considering the amount of death threats that he has received. Obama is a brave man, and a well spoken man. Furthermore, Obama received his J.D. in law, he paid it off himself through working odd jobs. Most people that get their J.D. have been heavily supported by their parents. Plus Obama's 10 YEARS on senate, where he passed numerous bills and got A LOT done, despite what republicans would like to think. http://www.thomas.gov
Obama is VERY will off for a Jr Senator. His pace is out pacing McCain. Obama is very well organized, and handling the attention on him very well. Obama has been watched very closely by the media, and McCain has been fortunate to not be getting a lot of media coverage considering his history of mess ups. Obama is NOT racist.
Obama stated how he joined the TUCC because he liked them for their activities. He has stated numerous times how he is not religious. Obama comes from a colorful upbringing. His mother was white, his father was black (who left him when he was 3 and Obama never really met), Obama's step father was asian, and Obama has friends that come from a large varying group of ethnicities. Even Obama's campaign workers are a large variety of ethnicities. I don't understand why you don't like Obama. He has a superior stance and everything.
Do you remember when the dems (Clinton) was president? The economy BOOMED!
But Obama's policies are long term, and he has shown that he can work with the governing bodies of other states quite well. If they work together things will flow more smoothly...
Hopefully, people will help get this information out...
Do you remember McCain's k5 friends? How about McCain's oil friends? How McCain said I'll fight if this war has to go on 100 more years...
McCain is a terrifying character. Obama's friend, everyone has a friend that is a bit nutty. It was Obama's friend that said this stuff, not Obama...
Unlike in McCain's case. It seems as if McCain doesn't care about all the lives being lost...
Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) is proposing an amendment to the appropriations bill that funds the Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services to prohibit federal funding for Planned Parenthood
According to its annual report, Planned Parenthood received almost a third (or $333 Million) of its annual $1 billion budget from federal grants and contracts.
1) Shoud tax payer money go to this organization?
2) Couldn't this money be used for something other than Planned Parenthood? Let's say healthcare?
Thoughts?
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200803/CUL20080318a.html
Hillary "had little to do with crafting the landmark legislation or ushering it through Congress, according to several lawmakers, staffers, and healthcare advocates involved in the issue...(She) regularly cites the number of children in each state who are covered by the program, and mothers of sick children have appeared at Clinton campaign rallies to thank her...Several current and former lawmakers and staff said Hillary Clinton had no role in helping to write the congressional legislation, which grew out of a similar program approved in Massachusetts in 1996."
*SCHIP=children's health insurance plan.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/14/769231.aspx
"The Boston Globe front-pages Clinton’s role in SCHIP: “Clinton, who has frequently described herself on the campaign trail as playing a pivotal role in forging a children's health insurance plan, had little to do with crafting the landmark legislation or ushering it through Congress, according to several lawmakers, staffers, and healthcare advocates involved in the issue.”
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/14/769231.aspx
he's proposing just about the same thing on his presidential campaign website as he did in Mass. and its going horribly wrong..
"According to recent reports, the cost of Massachusetts' health insurance mandate will rise 85 percent, or $400 million, in 2009. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R), meanwhile, has been on the presidential campaign trail praising the program he put into place."
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200801/POL20080128a.html
"he suggested mandatory health escrow accounts for people who decline to insure themselves"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120182471883733637.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks
umm. escrow accounts???? wow. just wow.
How do you feel about voting for him not that we see that the same plans he has for our country have created such a burden on his state as governer?
sure do commagar, just need to be in the sushi house!
latinole:
"i think romney said he no longer supports his health care plan in massachusettes."
* 2 minutes ago
so.. HE no longer supports HIS OWN plan... that'll be fun in the white house.
he's proposing just about the same thing on his presidential campaign website.. problem is, he did it in Massachusetts's and its going horribly wrong.. this has made me rethink my vote, i will now be voting for Ron Paul (plus he's stronger on immigration).
heres part of the article linked below:
"According to recent reports, the cost of Massachusetts' health insurance mandate will rise 85 percent, or $400 million, in 2009. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R), meanwhile, has been on the presidential campaign trail praising the program he put into place."
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200801/POL20080128a.html
i was not aware of this, and have been glad that it was brought to my attention before it was too late. How do you feel about voting for him not that we see that the same plans he has for our country have created such a burden on his state as governer?
aww come on - no stars?
macguyver: from article you linked:
"Instead, Mr. Romney saw the status quo and raised. At first he suggested mandatory health escrow accounts for people who decline to insure themselves. Once the consultants and the liberal state legislature were through with it, Mr. Romney's initiative became the "individual mandate," a first-in-the-nation requirement that residents acquire insurance or pay penalties."
..Wow. just wow.
This takes a minute to read skip this question if reading is too hard for you
CBN News reports that the Red Cross says the Mexican government is engaged in open hypocrisy: demanding the U.S. open its borders and its wallet to every government service while Mexican officials continue to abuse those entering Mexico illegally and deny the most basic human rights to any.The Mexican constitution provides for stiff penalties for illegal aliens caught entering or living in Mexico. But beyond that, CBN News shows how the Red Cross is trying to expose “unofficial” abuses committed by Mexican police and immigration officials against aliens. Such abuses include bribery, robbery, assault, kidnapping, rape, and murder. Where is Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International? Once again, we find them strangely absent. The Mexican government was outraged by the movement to build a new wall on America's southern border. Mexico's Foreign Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez went before the cameras to protest.But in Mexico, when it comes to the treatment of its illegal aliens it's, ‘Do as as I say, not as I do.’Mexico has called U.S. immigration policy "harsh," and has called the proposed wall on the U.S. Mexico border "shameful." But some have called the Mexican immigration policy "hypocritical."Enter Mexico illegally and you're treated as a felon. If you're caught by the Federal Police, you'll be fortunate if you're only deported immediately. The unfortunate are robbed, abused, raped, or even murdered by corrupt police officers.Yet the government of Mexico as yet remains unchallenged even by the same Catholic Church quick to criticize the U.S. for alleged shortcomings. Although the Catholic Church in Mexico does shield illegal aliens from being found out, it refuses to publicly criticize the government in Mexico City as it does the one in Washington, D.C. Fernando Aguilar Neri coordinates Red Cross efforts to help illegal aliens in Mexico“When people approach us, they are usually fearful that we work with the government and are afraid of being reported,” said Neri. “…One of the seven principles of the Red Cross is complete neutrality and independence, so we can't cooperate with the Mexican government on the illegal alien issue.”Mexico doesn’t make it easy on naturalized citizens either: according to its own constitution, those immigrating to Mexico and becoming naturalized will never have the right to vote or take part in the political process. Also, anyone wishing to be naturalized or otherwise live in Mexico who was not born there to Mexican parents must prove he will be able to cover his own healthcare, pay for any liabilities incurred, and otherwise be financially solvent without taking jobs away from locals. The Center for Security Policy bullets a few of the provisions which, were they law in the United States, would even a very unfair immigration playing field at present: Immigrants and foreign visitors are banned from public political discourse.Immigrants and foreigners are denied certain basic property rights.Immigrants are denied equal employment rights.Immigrants and naturalized citizens will never be treated as real Mexican citizens.Immigrants and naturalized citizens are not to be trusted in public service.Immigrants and naturalized citizens may never become members of the clergy.Private citizens may make citizens arrests of lawbreakers (i.e., illegal immigrants)and hand them to the authorities.Immigrants may be expelled from Mexico for any reason and without due process.Sneaking into Mexico of course is a punishable felony, which immediately disqualifies the offender from ever being able to obtain citizenship. To further add to the risks for illegal aliens, Mexican border guards are permitted to shoot on site illegals caught trying to enter the country, and do so without regard for age, gender, race, nationality, refugee or health status. About 10 percent of Mexico's population is now living in the United States, that’s over 10 million people. And how many illegal aliens in its own country has Mexico legalized in the past five years? Just 15,000. The Mexican government may think a new wall on the U.S. border is offensive, but critics are saying far worse things about Mexico's immigration policy.http://blogbat.us/mt/archives/2007/09/red_cross_mexic.html
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/14/5210/
We have a lot of things hitting us at one time.
We have contaminated our air and waterways, clear-cut our forests, and our inner cities are dying. The pollution of such natural resources often preceeds economic and societal collapses. The shrinking dollar, soaring gas prices, housing slump and stock market fall, though inconvenient, are not the biggest threats to the economy. These are symptoms caused by deeper systemic problems. We need to learn from these events and discover how to build more sustainable societies. Otherwise, these “hits” are likely to increase and spread.
Many major American institutions are in crisis, including healthcare, religion, transportation, political systems, energy, and education.
That which Heinberg and other Peak Oil theorists have been predicting for years seems to be entering its next stage. With the supply of petroleum and other fossil fuels diminishing and the demand for them increasing–especially from rapidly industrializing China and India–we are moving toward a radically worsened US economy. Canada is one of the many countries whose citizens are ahead of the US in prudent planning for pending crises caused by extreme climate, Peak Oil, and related matters. The Vancouver City Planning Commission has posted a report on a 2006 seminar on collapse at www.plancanada.com. Videos of such ongoing seminars to get ready are available at www.peakmoment.org.
Too many Americans selfishly believe that they have a God-given right to consume whatever their wealth can purchase, without regard to the consequences to other people and the Earth. They take, rather than give, even the natural resources of other peoples. As a farmer, I know that you reap what you sow and that chickens come home to roost.
1. Ties to china (illegal campaign contributions, selling secret missile technology they can use on us, Walmart-board/anti-US union)?
2. Ties to drug cartels/drug trade/illegals? (bill's drug-manuf./dealer pardons, pro-illegal voting, anti-border voting, photos ofher with drug cartel leaders).
3. Socialist agenda (Hillary-care and kidsfirst as programs to impose socialized healthcare and ultimately socialist government as described in her Wellesley thesis prescribing the imposition of socialism from teh top down).
4. Hiding documents from the archives, "offing" of many people who knew damaging information.
5. Planting questions at public forums, being "forgainst" on many issues.
6. Seemingly needing to out-do bill, marriage-of-ambition?
7. Blaming Bush for anything and everything, from a loose button to a cloudy sky.
Anything else?
p.s. this is about Hillary, not Bush
Fox and CNN are carrying Freedom Watch's ads featuring Iraqi veterans arguing for sustained military presence in Iraq, but MSNBC and CNBC have refused.
They claimed that they don't allow ads that talk about contraversial issues, however, they've had anti-war ads from moveon.org, and ads about national healthcare and darfur on their stations.
Do you think MSNBC and CNN are right to editorialize & discriminate by refusing to sell their airtime to certain groups?
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2007/08/018302.php
hey G - notice I didn't suggest silencing them or forcing them to carry the ads... I was asking what *you* think :P
Fox and CNN are carrying Freedom Watch's ads featuring Iraqi veterans arguing for sustained military presence in Iraq, but MSNBC and CNBC have refused.
They claimed that they don't allow ads that talk about contraversial issues, however, they've had anti-war ads from moveon.org, and ads about national healthcare and darfur on their stations.
Do you think MSNBC and CNN are right to editorialize & discriminate by refusing to sell their airtime to certain groups?
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2007/08/018302.php
Brenda Walker Archive Email a Friend...
Printer Friendly Version...
September 12, 2003
Mexico’s Rich Don’t Like To Pay Taxes – They Think You Should
By Brenda Walker
[More by Brenda Walker]
“Poor Mexico, so far from God, so close to the United States" is an early example of the now-familiar annoying whine, first voiced by Mexican President Porfirio Diaz .
Pathetic loser, mooch, social basket case, criminal narco-state: these are Americans' mental pictures of Mexico.
But more than any other, the image is one of staggering poverty. Anyone who has been to a Mexican border town is immediately overwhelmed by the Third World - the oppressive dirt, decay, too many underfed children.
However, the truth is that Mexico is a very wealthy country. It is blessed with abundant natural resources and a fortunate location. Mexico is the richest nation in Latin America when measured by GDP, and by a wide margin: in 2001, Mexico's GDP was the highest in Latin America, a substantial 22.5 percent more than runner-up Brazil. When GDP per capita is the gauge, Mexico is second only behind Argentina.
Half of all Latin American billionaires, 11 out of 22, are Mexicans.
Mexico is the quintessential banana republic—a corrupt oligarchy of arrogant rich, a tiny middle class and millions of poor people, around half of whom live in poverty.
But Mexico is not poor overall. It has the resources to improve itself.
Economist Gary Hufbauer of the Institute for International Economics recently noted that Mexico has tax collections that amount to only 14 percent of the country's gross domestic profit, compared with the U.S. level of 25 to 28 percent.
Hubauer’s conclusion: "Basically the wealthy classes do not want to tax themselves, period."
Hufbauer further remarked:
"Basic social services and infrastructure are awfully lean for a country that wants to move ahead. While I'm not usually an advocate for larger government, Mexico is a country where public investment, done wisely, could pay huge dividends."
Arguably, with adequate taxation of its freeloader rich, Mexico could follow the example of the Asian tiger nations and invest its way into economic progress by building industrial infrastructure and educating its workforce. The recent loss of Mexican jobs to China was partially due to the lack of capital spending on education, ports, roads and industrial parks.
But investment would cost money. And Mexico refuses to take responsibility for the social needs of its population. It's so much easier to let the Americans care for Mexico's poor.
Indeed, the Mexican propaganda war to convince Americans of the need to support poor Mexico has been largely successful.
Washington's current degree of solicitude for the well being of Mexicans is quite astonishing, particularly at a time when Americans are suffering the highest unemployment in nine years. Congress and the President are considering various welfare packages for Mexico; such as Sen. McCain's "guest worker" plan (where the "guests" never leave).
On July 10, the Senate passed a bill to provide $100 million in microloans for the poorest regions of Mexico. It's stunning that Congress would vote to provide financial aid to wealthy Mexico when 47 U.S. states have severe budget deficits and federal red ink is the highest ever.
Central to Mexican strategy is maintaining the billions of dollars in remittance money flowing south, thereby keeping a lid on social unrest among the masses. In that way, the oligarchy preserves its enormous power and riches.
The immigration scam is very successful: the rulers export their unemployment to the United States and get back billions in remittance cash annually— 2003 is on track to rack up a record $11 billion.
Talk about easy money: the worse the oligarchy run the country, the more people leave and send back money.
Furthermore, every social service for illegal aliens and legal immigrants financed by the American taxpayer—medical care, K-12 education, college tuition breaks, housing vouchers and food stamps—frees up more money for remittances.
Recent surveys show half of Latino immigrants send money home, with a monthly average amount of $250.
Mexico's propaganda effort is helped enormously by the annual carnage of unprepared walkers who die in the desert as they illegally cross into the U.S. Predictably, the May death of 19 people in an unventilated truck in Texas incited anti-borders extremists to pile blame on American immigration law.
Mexico would prefer that all its excess workers could cross an unenforced border to keep remittance dollars flowing.
Washington is currently focused on building democracy in Iraq at a cost of $4 billion per month. But should this effort really be at the top of our national priorities?
A much smaller investment could bring our southern border under control and would lower the threat of terrorists entering there. The expanding power of lawless elements in Mexican society, e.g. narco-traffickers, must be recognized as a security threat - particularly with recent reports of connections between Mexican drug cartels and terrorists, including al Qaeda. Border control is now critical to national security.
There's no reason why Mexico cannot evolve from being a parasite state into an adult nation. Washington was optimistic when opposition party candidate Vicente Fox won the presidency.
But the Fox administration has only displayed more of the same tiresome dependence.
Apparently the current system is just too easy and profitable for the insatiable ruling class.
Tough immigration enforcement from the United States is the only way to force Mexico to get its act together.
If Mr. Bush still thinks of Vicente Fox as his good friend, the President will help wean his pal from the distasteful immigration addiction that keeps Mexico mired in the Third World.
Tough love - border and interior enforcement – is the true expression of caring.
Faced with the unavoidable necessity of fixing their country, Mexicans would have to insist that the country be run for the benefit of all - not for the gluttonous few.
Brenda Walker [email her] is a writer living in California. She publishes two websites, LimitsToGrowth.org and www.ImmigrationsHumanCost.org. She recently advanced the ingenious suggestion that remittances be taxed in order to pay for illegal immigrant healthcare costs borne by border hospitals.
for links in this article go to:
http://www.vdare.com/walker/mexico_the_rich.htm
RSS