Which way do you swing... Poltically

[flamefan74]

In the first quiz, I was smack dab in between Bush and Kerry. In the second, I was a right-conservative. Comments on a couple of issues:

Military
We should draft for the military. Making the punks serve a couple years before being let out into the free world on their own might actually smarten them up and learn a little respect. No disrespect to the punks on this board.

Health Care
Don't pump any more money into it until you fix the problems that the program currently has. For example, when did this country turn into a bunch of sucks. If you get a sniffle, don't go to the doctor. Take some NyQuil or the such. I have seen too many people sitting in a waiting room at the doctors office because they cold and want medication from the doctor. The doctor takes one look at them and sends them home to get some rest. Waste of everybodies time.

Education
A universal program for the entire country up to grade 12. Too many differences between the provinces in regards to curriculum.

Taxation
Everybody taxed at the same rate with a basic minimum set at $25,000.

Crime
Didn't see this issue (I may be blind), but we need to get tougher on criminals in this country. Enough of the easy ride, it should be harsher penalties for all criminal acts, especially crimes committed with a weapon or violent crimes. Young offender act needs to be totally redone. No more 2 tier justice system (ie. Svend Robinson vs a regular 9 to 5 joe).

Immigration
More immigration, but a better screening process so that those who do not qualify are shipped out of the country now, not when we get around to it. (By those that don't qualify, I am talking about criminals.)

[Jaybo]

Here's my quick takes...

Poll #1 - South-You are a Southerner-an egalitarian-which means that you advocate an increased role for the government in the economic realm. You are more or less pleased the government's role in the personal realm.

Poll #2 - Left-Liberal (80% Personal Issues, 0% Economic Issues)
Left-Liberals generally embrace freedom of choice in personal matters, but support central decision-making in economics. They want the government to help the disadvantaged in the name of fairness. Liberals tend to tolerate social diversity, but work for what they might describe as "economic equality."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issues

Employment:
The government has a role in job creation and contrary to what others have said, they can and do have a role in creating jobs, both directly and indirectly. Think New Deal after the Depression in the US for instance.

Education:
Should be a European-type model where it is free for anyone who completes their post-secondary education.
You complete your four years, the government hands you a cheque so that you can enter the workforce starting from 0 rather than from -$30 000 or $50 000 like so many students are forced to do these days. The more educated a nation is, the stronger it is in all areas is my personal belief.

Drugs:
Legalize, regulate and tax soft drugs (marijuana, hash). Keep hard drugs illegal.

Health and Public Safety:
Similar to what they're doing now but possibly more could be done. A "fat tax" is an interesting idea to me for instance.

Health Care:
Move towards a preventative system (ie. encouraging healthy lifestyles via programs, taxes, etc.) and also team-based health care when you are ill - ie. a clinic should have a doctor but also a nurse, a chiropractor, a dietician, a pharmacist, etc. Use less-expensive nurse practitioners in the gap between what doctors can do and what regular nurses can do (ie. do you need a highly paid doctor to check your cough or issue a prescription refill?)

Lifestyle Choices:
Little to none. If you want to “marry” a box turtle, go ahead. The only regulations should be when someone doesn't have an equal say in the union/marriage or will be harmed by it (ie. if three people want to "marry" each other, that's their business and fine by me. If a polygamist wants to "marry" a 13 year old girl, that shouldn't be allowed - unless the age of consent is 13 and the girl (and her parents depending on the law) agree to it.)

Social Assistance:
People should be guaranteed a certain level of income just by virtue of being citizens of the country whether they work or not – maybe $10-12 000/year which is what current minimum wage will pay you for a full-time job. A higher minimum wage (~$8/hr for up to 18 years old, ~$10/hr for adults) would propel the economy, not harm it.

Support of Business:
Continue to regulate business but in many cases, do so in a stronger fashion. Government should implement laws and taxes and/or credits that promote triple-bottom line economics that look at not only economics but social and environmental costs in the long-term rather than the current “financial bottom line, quarterly profits model.”

Freedom of Speech:
I’m fairly happy with our current laws which are a good balance between allowing people to say what they want but preventing hateful or other problematic speech.

Taxation:
Progressive taxation - when you as an individual or business benefit more from the opportunities of living in a country, you owe it to that country to pay more of the share of everything you benefit from.

Immigration:
Especially in Canada, an open, accepting immigration policy is very important to bring in skilled people and also just to maintain our population.

Foreign Policy:
Assist developing nations. Peacekeeping. Staying out of bogus wars.

Military:
Voluntary. The US is so dominant do we even need a military with offensive/defensive capabilities? Or should we let the US handle that role and have a different role for our military (peacekeeping and internal actions – ie. natural disasters, etc.)

Scientific Research:
Government funding. It wasn’t a topic but I also believe in government support for the arts as well.

Bottom Line
I have a personal theory that in general, “right wing” people are that way because they tend to think of themselves first whereas “left wing” people are that way because they tend to put the whole of society first. Some of the comments in this thread reinforce that – someone said how they never liked their taxes going to something they didn’t need until they had a child who had daycare (and will have education) needs. Then, suddenly, the thought of cheap or free daycare/schooling is probably more appealing than paying the shot yourself. For the right-wingers, they’ll still say “yeah, but if I have kids, I have a responsibility to pay for those things I use – and only those things I use – myself.” I disagree. If you are part of this society, you have an equal duty to your fellow citizens to make the country the best you can by paying your taxes and supporting the infrastructure and development of our country. Another example that was given was in regards to charity – someone said that government shouldn’t be in the business of charity and private giving should fill this role. I don’t know how we can reconcile that all of the people who complain about paying *any* taxes are going to be convinced to give to charity! Plus, it’s a fact that if this were the case, only the “trendy, popular” charities would get funding. And charities would suddenly have to start spending money on marketing instead of on the core reasons they exist (this is already the case somewhat.)

[moon]

Northerner on the first quiz.

Right-Conservative on the second.

Right where I knew I would fit in. I know my political views and feel strongly about them so all these tests are always going to put me right where I belong right of Bush and the Alliance. Like I always say I will vote Reform/Alliance/Conservative until their is a more right wing viable option avialable to me.

will add my thoughts on the points raised when I can put the proper amount of time into them (hopefully tomorrow.)

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

NW-You would feel most at home in the Northwest region. You advocate a large degree of economic and personal freedom. Your neighbors include folks like Ayn Rand, Jesse Ventura, Milton Friedman, and Drew Carey, and may refer to themselves as "classical liberals," "libertarians," "market liberals," "old whigs," "objectivists," "propertarians," "agorists," or "anarcho-capitalist."

Thats where I usually end up on these things, but while answering the questions I didn't get the sense I was headed there. Neat litle poll.

A couple quick comments:

Social programs - I'm OK with public adminsitration and collective goals, but private delivery & choice should be keys

Taxation - a necessary evil to pay for the choices we make as a society, but the goals should be to collect the funds with as little damage as possible, not to use the tax system as a social driver.

Government funding - should be 0 or virtually 0 for sciences, arts etc. Thats what markets are for.

To Lanny's note on super-projects. I had a chance to speak with one of Canada's astopnaughts once a couple years ago, and he suggested a mission to mars is doable now, without any scientific advancements at all. He figured it could be done iside 5 years. The stumbling block was of course cost, but also human cost.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Quiz One

SE- You would feel most at home in the Southeast region. You advocate a large degree of government control over both economic and personal affairs. Your neighbors include FDR, Pat Buchanan, Adolf Hitler, and Josef Stalin, and may refer to themselves to as "communitarians," "authoritarians," "traditionalists," "fascists," or "communists."

I like the idea of being associated with FDR, Buchanan not so much, Hitler/Stalin well not in the whole genicide way.

Quiz Two

Centrist
Centrists favor selective government intervention and emphasize what they commonly describe as "practical solutions" to current problems. They tend to keep an open mind on political issues. Many centrists feel that government serves as a check on excessive liberty.

The red dot on the Chart shows where you fit on the political map.


Your Personal issues Score is 50%.
Your Economic issues Score is 30%.

(Please note: Scores falling on the Centrist border are counted as Centrist.)

Issues

Employment:
The government has a role to try and keep the economy in balance, when there is a downturn in the economy the government should step up and try and reverse the situation. Think FDR and the "new deal". Actually I like the ideas of government running business for profit to help gain non-taxed income. Think Nova Scotia Liquor Commission, or the Bank of Canada, money makers not takers.


Education:
invest in the public education system, make certain that the standards are high, infact I like the idea of the government providing the International Bacculaurate program in all high schools, keep a high level of education, while providing those who need extra help with the help they need.

Then comes post-secondary. I like the idea of lower tuition, but I think univeristy is supposed to be a stepping stone to the real world so it shouldn't be 100% free like grade schools. Paying for books, lab fees, etc I'm happy with if tuition was free. I think it's expensive right now, maybe if they made undergraduate free, and grad school cost, as when you graduate from grad school you should have an education that will enable you pay off your debts with a good job.

Drugs:
I like where we are now. I'm NOT in favor of legalizing marijauna (shocking for a 22 yr old university student) infact the signs are pointing to criminalizing tobacco. Here's why I think the writing is on the wall for that one (but not for a LONG while yet): 20 years ago you could smoke on airplanes and in every public place, then not on airplanes, then not in governement buildings, then not in resturants, then not in malls, then not in resturants, then not in bars, then only in segregated boxes, and 25-50 feet from any public building. How strict it is becoming in Alberta I do not know, but in Nova Scotia you can't light up in any of the before mentioned places. I was having an argument with my second cousin last summer (a non-smoker arguing for smokers rights) he said soon it'll be where you can't walk across the street with a smoke in your hand. My reply was how is that different from alcohol. He had NO REPLY. But I think it'll get to the point where the governement will just say, it's illegal now, or the companies will say "this just isn't profitable" they'll close then the gov't will say ok "now it's banned"


Health and Public Safety:
Free medicare, I don't like the two-tiered system, it doesn't work (look at the US, if you're poor and get cancer the doctors just kinda say "sorry"). In fact I think that the governments should be employing scientists to find CURES for illnesses and not just ways to live with them (part of the private problem). This costs money but a line I use at work when people bitch about the taxes they have to pay on what they buy "yeah I know it's bad, but then again I like not having to pay hospital bills" I had an old lady agree with me as soon as I said "hospital bills" her demeaner completely changed. Also more money into the police/legal/fire systems.

Health Care:
see above. That and if you were born in the 1960's on, and smoke you should have to pay for any medical bill that's smoking related. I mean seriously I knew that it would kill you and cause cancer when I was like 3 (ok maybe 6 or 7) so there's NO REASON why the governement should have to pay for your stupidity. Also if you take a gun and shoot yourself in the foot, why should I have to pay for that? If it's brain-dead stupidity, pay for it yourself.

Lifestyle Choices:
"I don't care". Don't take that the wrong way. Here's how I look at it. I'll use an example close to the board. A few years ago Mr. and Mrs. Cowperson wanted to get married, and they did (congratulations by the way). Now did I know either of them? No, did I know they existed at the time? No. Therefore did I care that they got married? Well I guess not. It had no relevance to me whatsoever. Are they married and happy? Sure, and I think that's great! Now, if two people who I don't know, who I never heard of want to get married go for it. If they happen to be the same gender again what do I care? There's an old saying "whatever floats your boat". All I ask is no public displays of affection (hetero or homo-sexual) as frankly I don't need it being rubbed in my face that I'm alone

Social Assistance:
if you need it, it should be there. However it should be less than minimum wage. Why should the government pay you more to sit at home being on your ass, than to go flip burgers? I'm not saying that this is always the case but it leaves that option open. If you really want to work but can't get work, then social assistance should be there, if you don't want to work, then why should you get paid? Pay your dues and you'll get a cheque.

Support of Business:
support it, and even entre in the competitive private sector if there is money to be made. Why is it that a government can break even, and run a deficit, but not invest in a nest egg?

Freedom of Speech:
I like it as is. I don't like the idea of cursing and swearing around little children, I mean manners. However if you're on public grounds (like a park, bus, etc) you should be fined. There are limits to freedom. You have the freedom as long as it doesn't impose on others.

Taxation:
progressive, the more you make the more you can afford to pay. Help your fellow citizens

Immigration:
open, as long as you don't come in and expect just to drain the social system welcome. If you want to come in and just kinda sit at home eat chips and collect a cheque... there's the door ---->

Foreign Policy:
Help where ever possible, but pay attention, we don't need any more Can-Indian A-Bombs. Forgive 3rd world debt.

Military:
as is, invest in more modern equiptment for those who will give their lives to protect us. I'm not a fan of war. I like our track record so far, let's keep it up.

Scientific Research:
lots of funding, as stated in the health care portion, look for cures, not for ways of living with things.

Bottom Line
I believe in the economy, and people taking care of themselves, but I believe in the social saftey net, and in healthcare. I'd say I'm centrist (as does the above links). I'm happy here.

[transplant99]

Health Care:
see above. That and if you were born in the 1960's on, and smoke you should have to pay for any medical bill that's smoking related. I mean seriously I knew that it would kill you and cause cancer when I was like 3 (ok maybe 6 or 7) so there's NO REASON why the governement should have to pay for your stupidity. Also if you take a gun and shoot yourself in the foot, why should I have to pay for that? If it's brain-dead stupidity, pay for it yourself.

Ridiculous.

Speeding in your car can kill you.....drinking too much alcohol can kill you....getting extremely overweight can kill you (Eating at McDonalads).....all examples of people not taking personal responsibility but you single one out.....there are a hundred more examples.

The one thing smokers can claim above and beyond almost all those examples? They are ALREADY paying for health care down the road in the form of oppresive taxation on the product they purchase legally. They are RIGHT NOW subsidizing the health care system, and you say they shouldnt be allowed to benefit from that when its their turn?


Yeah that makes sense.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Maritime Q-Scout@Aug 22 2004, 05:44 PM
Employment:
The government has a role to try and keep the economy in balance, when there is a downturn in the economy the government should step up and try and reverse the situation. Think FDR and the "new deal".

Ahh the same FDR who together with Herbert Hoover caused, worsened and prolonged the depression?

Murray N. Rothbard - America`s Great Depression

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/agd.pdf


This thread is pointless when people base their opinions on gut feelings and not facts.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally posted by transplant99@Aug 22 2004, 02:52 PM
Health Care:
see above. That and if you were born in the 1960's on, and smoke you should have to pay for any medical bill that's smoking related. I mean seriously I knew that it would kill you and cause cancer when I was like 3 (ok maybe 6 or 7) so there's NO REASON why the governement should have to pay for your stupidity. Also if you take a gun and shoot yourself in the foot, why should I have to pay for that? If it's brain-dead stupidity, pay for it yourself.

Ridiculous.

Speeding in your car can kill you.....drinking too much alcohol can kill you....getting extremely overweight can kill you (Eating at McDonalads).....all examples of people not taking personal responsibility but you single one out.....there are a hundred more examples.

The one thing smokers can claim above and beyond almost all those examples? They are ALREADY paying for health care down the road in the form of oppresive taxation on the product they purchase legally. They are RIGHT NOW subsidizing the health care system, and you say they shouldnt be allowed to benefit from that when its their turn?


Yeah that makes sense.

but I said stupidity, if you eat too much McDonalds and get complications from it, then no the public shouldn't have to. I mentioned that (but not the exact McDonalds example)

Do you really expect me to list off every instance of stupidity? As well, I'm not.

If you drink and drive, and get in an accident should the public have to pay for your medicare?

If you speed and get in an accident should the public have to pay for your medicare?

If you smoke, and you fall and break your leg, then obviously the public system should cover you.

There are so many scenerios I'm not getting into them.

I don't see how it's obsurd to think that because you made a consious decision to injest cancer sticks, that when you get cancer the public pot should pay for it.

I do like the point about paying the high taxes on the cigarettes going toward healthcare. Point well taken (on that one point only) so I guess then I'll modify and say that a portion of that tax money should go towards healthcare (whatever portion of the overall pot goes towards it, ie if currently 45% of our tax money goes to healthcare, then 45% of the tax money on cigarettes should go towards smoker's healthcare, thus lowering some of the cost). That I think would be more fair.

[transplant99]

You missed the entire point.

They ALREADY ARE paying for it.

I havent got the exact figures right in front of me, but IIRC there is some 3 BILLION dollars a year collected by the gov't in the form of taxation on tobacco products.

Why is that? Why shouldnt that money that has been paid by users already...be used on them when needed? Why are they subsidizing other areas of health care with their money and not be allowed to collect when the time comes?

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty+Aug 22 2004, 03:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flame Of Liberty @ Aug 22 2004, 03:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Maritime Q-Scout@Aug 22 2004, 05:44 PM
Employment:
The government has a role to try and keep the economy in balance, when there is a downturn in the economy the government should step up and try and reverse the situation. Think FDR and the "new deal".

Ahh the same FDR who together with Herbert Hoover caused, worsened and prolonged the depression?

Murray N. Rothbard - America`s Great Depression

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/agd.pdf


This thread is pointless when people base their opinions on gut feelings and not facts. [/b][/quote]
we're talking about the same FDR that built a nationwide highways system, libraries, and built a powergrid for america? That FDR?

Hmmm because yeah, having the government paying people, and building infrastructer is the LAST think you should do in a depression right? The fact that the private sector was still cutting, and the fact that macro-economics was yet to be invented/discovered has NOTHING to do with it.

Yes, it was FDR creating jobs, and building infrastructer that kept the depression going if it wasn't for that, the roaring 20's would still be going today

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally posted by transplant99@Aug 22 2004, 03:41 PM
You missed the entire point.

They ALREADY ARE paying for it.

I havent got the exact figures right in front of me, but IIRC there is some 3 BILLION dollars a year collected by the gov't in the form of taxation on tobacco products.

Why is that? Why shouldnt that money that has been paid by users already...be used on them when needed? Why are they subsidizing other areas of health care with their money and not be allowed to collect when the time comes?

I hit post before finishing what I was saying, I edited it, re-read... sorry.

[transplant99]

Fair enough...but 45%? Why that number and not 100%? Its a seperate tax that only applies to those produts....those who pay it should be the ones to use it when needed...no?

[Flame Of Liberty]

I give up. Ansers to your questions are in the pdf book i just posted (pages 185-320).

End of the book:

`Economic theory demonstrates that only governmental inflation can generate a boom-and-bust cycle, and that the depression will be prolonged and aggravated by inflationist and other interventionary measures. In contrast to the myth of laissez-faire, we have shown in this book how government intervention generated the unsound boom of the 1920s, and how Hoover’s new departure aggravated the Great Depression by massive measures of interference.

The guilt for the Great Depression must, at long last, be lifted from the shoulders of the free-market economy, and placed where it properly belongs: at the doors of
politicians, bureaucrats, and the mass of “enlightened” economists. And in any other depression, past or future, the story will be the same.`

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally posted by transplant99@Aug 22 2004, 03:52 PM
Fair enough...but 45%? Why that number and not 100%? Its a seperate tax that only applies to those produts....those who pay it should be the ones to use it when needed...no?

I suppose, I never gave it much thought, I figured same amount as the rest. If we pay 7% tax on a guy fixing our airconditioner, and 45% of that goes to healthcare why not? I don't see 100% of it going to airconditioner related spending.

I'll give it more thought, as it is valid, I guess I have no opinion and went with status quo, but applying it to smokers only (ergo no tax money from cigarette purchases would go to aid non-smokers)

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty@Aug 22 2004, 03:54 PM
I give up. Ansers to your questions are in the pdf book i just posted (pages 185-320).

End of the book:

`Economic theory demonstrates that only governmental inflation can generate a boom-and-bust cycle, and that the depression will be prolonged and aggravated by inflationist and other interventionary measures. In contrast to the myth of laissez-faire, we have shown in this book how government intervention generated the unsound boom of the 1920s, and how Hoover’s new departure aggravated the Great Depression by massive measures of interference.

The guilt for the Great Depression must, at long last, be lifted from the shoulders of the free-market economy, and placed where it properly belongs: at the doors of
politicians, bureaucrats, and the mass of “enlightened” economists. And in any other depression, past or future, the story will be the same.`

granted I didn't read the .pdf (yet) I do have other things on the go (I'm killing time right now but won't have time to finish reading the section)

but what I'm saying is, I like being associated with the new deal, thinking outside the box, and putting mroe people to work, building towards the future when the economy is in a downturn to level out the business cycle. I think gov't interferance is a good thing.

Mind you, it was different back then (I've always said that) and they didn't understand macro-economics (as no one discovered it as of yet, or Keynes was just coming onto the scene I forget the exact years he came onto the scene).

So if you think I want to be like a very popular president who didn't understand how current economics works, then no. If you think I want to be like a popular president who believes in trying to turn around and level out the business cycle then yes.

I don't think those few pages will make me beileve that the building of the interstate highway systems, and public libraries, etc was a bad thing, but then again I keep an open mind when reading so you never know. I'll let you know what I think when I get the chance. It shall be bookmarked so I don't forget (if I do forget remind me every so often either here or in a PM as I DO want to read it)

[Jaybo]

Originally posted by flame of liberty
This thread is pointless when people base their opinions on gut feelings and not facts.

This from the guy who stated the "fact" that: "Libertarian = someone who does not believe in state/government. Period. Neither in small government, nor in big government. None."

When in actuality...

Libertarian =
1. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.

Key word is "minimizing", not eliminating.

I believe the ideology you are defining is...

Anarchy =
1. Absence of any form of political authority.

Of course, based on your answers of "none", "nope" and "never" to the role of government in various areas earlier in this thread, I just assumed you live in a country with no Internet since you don't believe in government-funded science and therefore had no way to look up these definitions!

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty@Aug 21 2004, 12:47 PM



Military: What is the perfect military?

Perfect military is military that protects people who are directly financing it, while honoring the principle of nonagression, ie acting only under attack or a threat of an attack.

Now I'm not currently an undergrad taking poli sci courses, so explain it to me like I'm a 5 year old.

How can you even have a military when you don't have a government or taxes or tariffs or any money?

Or, are you are proposing a system in which there are only private armies that protect only the guys who write the paycheques and buy the hardware?

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty@Aug 22 2004, 06:05 PM

This thread is pointless when people base their opinions on gut feelings and not facts.

Just a friendly piece of advice:

You'll get a lot further with your arguments if you accept that everyone's opinions are based on how our gut interprets facts, not the facts themselves. It doesn't matter whether the opinions are that of Murray N. Rothbard or Martitime Q. Scout.

[Fire]

Less government the better is all I can say. Why does the federal government have to have it hands on so much money? They should only be handling the military, national sports programs and the RCMP. Everything else should be the province's domain.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally posted by Fire@Aug 22 2004, 10:39 PM
Less government the better is all I can say. Why does the federal government have to have it hands on so much money? They should only be handling the military, national sports programs and the RCMP. Everything else should be the province's domain.

the Bank of Canada, and Canada Post should be run by the provinces?

(sorry just being an ass )