Hurrah!!!!! Rudy hints at getting out

[Mark Gambo]

Breaking News -- Rudy hints at getting out!!!!!

If it is true, then it is one Phony down and one to go!!!!

[Mark Gambo]

He should have kept the "Comb-over"

[Shaggy Hiker]

Once he loses in FL, he can be officially credited with the stupidest campaign in recent history.

[Mark Gambo]

Once he loses in FL, he can be officially credited with the stupidest campaign in recent history.

No, I will officially credit him right now based upon some of his more questionable decisions:

Dressing in drag and abandoning the comb over:


and his dumbest mistake, Bernard Kerik

[Mark Gambo]

It is getting better!!!!

[MartinLiss]

Very early voting (one small country) has him a respectable third.

[Mark Gambo]

Goodbye Rudy, Goodbye Rudy, Goodbye Rudy, I love to see you go!!!!!

With 51% percent of the precincts reporting, Rudy is a distant 3rd with 15% of the vote.


Why did I dress up like a woman?

[Mark Gambo]

You just can't make this stuff up. Rudy to endorse McCain as early as Wednesday.

Bye Bye Rudy!!!

[Mark Gambo]

Goodbye Rudy!!

[Xanith]

Yeah hes gone but hes likely to support someone worse.....John McCain.

X

[Mark Gambo]

Yeah hes gone but hes likely to support someone worse.....John McCain.

X

Nobody is worse than Rudy, I lived under his reign for 8 long years!!!


Good riddance to Bad Rubbish!!!!!

[Xanith]

Nobody is worse than Rudy, I lived under his reign for 8 long years!!!


Good riddance to Bad Rubbish!!!!!

I'm still trying to figure out what you didnt like about the guy. I was never a Rudy supporter but I did see he had some strong points. I know the guy was very polerizing for people in New York and its quite obvious that you hate the guy, but he did cut taxes and clean up the city rather well.

And McCain is worse. I mean we are going to have a choice between Hillary and McCain? Thats not a choice, thats a ticket.

X

[Tom Sawyer]

And McCain is worse. I mean we are going to have a choice between Hillary and McCain? Thats not a choice, thats a ticket.

Your country has an electoral system that was specifically designed to keep power concentrated in the hands of a few select rich people while maintaining a pretense of democratic choice for the rest of the population and for over 200 years has been doing exactly what it has been designed to do.

The nature of your comment suggests that at some previous point in history you actually had some form of choice and your vote somehow mattered. When was that?

[homer13j]

Your country has an electoral system that was specifically designed to keep power concentrated in the hands of a few select rich people while maintaining a pretense of democratic choice for the rest of the population and for over 200 years has been doing exactly what it has been designed to do.

Ouch... What perfectly enlightened country do you happen to be from, eh?

I can name quite a few examples of people who grew up dirt poor in the US who became very prominent and powerful political figures. I would even argue that it's far more likely to happen here in the US than anywhere else in the world. Maybe you just watch too much CNN...

[SurfDemon]

....I would even argue that it's far more likely to happen here in the US than anywhere else in the world. Maybe you just watch too much CNN...

Really? I always got the impression that US elections where more about who can raise the most money for advertising...... many other countries have very strict limits on political spending, thus evening out the playing fields....

Furthermore, those countries that have a free higher education system are far more likely to provide political opportunities to "dirt poor" citizens by allowing them to persue any career they wish. Be it doctor, lawyer or even computer programmer. Given that a good education is often (but not always ) linked to political life, this would appear to be another deciding factor in favour of other countries having more political opportunities... but oh, hang on, I forgot, America is the land of the free, isn't it How silly of me to question that

[Mark Gambo]

. . . I forgot, America is the land of the free, isn't it How silly of me to question that

Don't forget, if it wasn't for the USA, a lot of countries today would be speaking German, Russian, or some sort of Middle Eastern Dialect, eh SurfDemon? I guess during the period of 1940 to 1945 our political system was functioning very efficiently, eh SurfDemon.

[Xanith]

Furthermore, those countries that have a free higher education system are far more likely to provide political opportunities to "dirt poor" citizens by allowing them to persue any career they wish. Be it doctor, lawyer or even computer programmer. Given that a good education is often (but not always ) linked to political life, this would appear to be another deciding factor in favour of other countries having more political opportunities... but oh, hang on, I forgot, America is the land of the free, isn't it How silly of me to question that

Haha you think its free higher education huh? A lot of these socialistic countries that you are talking about have tax rates upwards of 40-60%. When will people learn that nothing is free, everything is getting paid for one way or another. I for one would rather have the choice to go to any college I want, paying as much or as little as I decide, not what the government decides.

And even the very poor in the US can get a great college education. There are so many grants, scholarships, and low interest loans available to those that work hard and get good grades in high school (which is “free” for everyone in the US).

There is a reason why people from all over the world come to the US for higher education, even though it is not “free”. I guess it’s the same reason why people come to the US for medical care, the “free” education that other countries doctors receive is just not the same as it is here in the US.

X

[SurfDemon]

Haha you think its free higher education huh? A lot of these socialistic countries that you are talking about have tax rates upwards of 40-60%. When will people learn that nothing is free, everything is getting paid for one way or another. I for one would rather have the choice to go to any college I want, paying as much or as little as I decide, not what the government decides.

Riiiiggghht. So a country with free eduction is a socialist country now is it? Funny definition, but there you go.... funny a quick glance at that socialist country of Britain shows that it's tax rate is 22% up to about $100,000. Which if I'm not mistaken is lower than the US tax rate for a comparable income.... strangely enough, it also has free medicine..... when will you stop harping on about that?

Oh hang, that's all very socialist isn't it? I get the impression that you think if anyone does anything different from the US, then it's "socialist". You see, it's very simple. Free higher education equals higher earning workers. Higher earning workers bring money into the country and pay a percentage of it in taxes. I have no doubt that the British government got the cost of my Computer degree back many times over in taxes... (at 22%), rather than if I had stuck to a lower paying job....

I'm curious. What's your policy on privatising other aspects of public service? Or is it just "Socialist" when it's anything different from the way the US does it at present?

How about privatising the police force? How different are they really from doctors and nurses in that they provide a service?

I know, what about privatising the fire-brigade? They would have lots of nice new equipment and they would only go out to those who paid their subscription. So is it socialist the fact that your fire-brigade isn't privatised?

What about NASA. Shouldn't that be privatised and made to fend for itself?

[Mark Gambo]

Just because something is free, doesn't always make it better. Most people perform better when they have to work for something, (Paying for School etc.) then if it is given to them (i.e. welfare).

@ SurfDemon - Take a breath and relax. You are too tense this has definitely stuck very close to home with you.

[SurfDemon]

Don't forget, if it wasn't for the USA, a lot of countries today would be speaking German, Russian, or some sort of Middle Eastern Dialect, eh SurfDemon? I guess during the period of 1940 to 1945 our political system was functioning very efficiently, eh SurfDemon.

Ah, we have the old chestnut. "If it wasn't for us you would be speaking German.". Really? Funny, but the when many countries stood up to be counted in 1939, the US was notable by it's absence. Is it likely you would have joined the war if you weren't attacked? Therefore I would say that no, your political system wasn't functioning very well then either. Or am I missing something?

Strangely enough, most people in Britain, whilst greatful for the late US help, and recognising that it did certainly lop a few years off the war, attribute the fact that they still speak English to the British, Canadian, Russian, New Zealand, Australian and Refugee European troops...... but hey, I know you want to believe that Britain would have fallen without you

[SurfDemon]

Just because something is free, doesn't always make it better. Most people perform better when they have to work for something, (Paying for School etc.) then if it is given to them (i.e. welfare).

@ SurfDemon - Take a breath and relax. You are too tense this has definitely stuck very close to home with you.

Sorry I don't mean to be tense. I'm, actually really enjoying this banter, because at the end of the day, it's really good fun to argue with people.

If I am a bit tense, then it's nothing to do with you guys... I've just found out that I've got to fly to Pakistan for a few weeks on Friday. I bloody hate going there as I stand out like a sore thumb, and I'll be honest, it scares the bejesus out of me

[SurfDemon]

Oh and I should request that you never take anything I say personally. I do actually really really like almost every American I know personally, and I do think that the US has an awful lot to be proud about (Nasa, Technology etc.). However, your education system, health care system and political system don't really fall into that "things to be proud of" category...

[homer13j]

I always got the impression that US elections where more about who can raise the most money for advertising......

That's right... who can RAISE the most money has the best shot, not who HAS the most money. We have (largely unconstitutional) campaign spending laws, too. If that wasn't the case Steve Forbes would have been president for the last 8 years and nobody would have ever heard of Dennis Kucinich (I can dream, can't I? ).

So a country with free eduction is a socialist country now is it?

Compared to us y'all are socialists... With the exception of maybe Australia.

[Mark Gambo]

Funny, but the when many countries stood up to be counted in 1939, the US was notable by it's absence.

Lend Lease, it was in all of the papers.

[Xanith]

Riiiiggghht. So a country with free eduction is a socialist country now is it? Funny definition, but there you go.... funny a quick glance at that socialist country of Britain shows that it's tax rate is 22% up to about $100,000. Which if I'm not mistaken is lower than the US tax rate for a comparable income.... strangely enough, it also has free medicine..... when will you stop harping on about that?

Actually that is wrong. If I was working in the UK I would be taxed at 40% for what I was earning (this band starts at 34,600 pounds which is ~69,200 dollars). Also my capital gains would be taxed at 32.5%. It is 15% in the US. So in other words if I was working in the UK they would be taking twice as much money they are taking from me here in the US. To reiterate my point education is not “free”, healthcare is not “free”, it is all being paid for by the taxpayers.

Oh hang, that's all very socialist isn't it? I get the impression that you think if anyone does anything different from the US, then it's "socialist". You see, it's very simple. Free higher education equals higher earning workers. Higher earning workers bring money into the country and pay a percentage of it in taxes. I have no doubt that the British government got the cost of my Computer degree back many times over in taxes... (at 22%), rather than if I had stuck to a lower paying job....

Countries are free to do things the way the want, I personally don’t care if people want their government to handle everything from cradle to grave or not, that is their choice. Here in the US I would fight anything along the lines of nationalized heath care or even nationalized higher education.

Again there are plenty of opportunities for people in the US who wish to get a higher education that are poor. There are plenty of scholarships, grants, and low interest loans that people can take advantage of.

I'm curious. What's your policy on privatising other aspects of public service? Or is it just "Socialist" when it's anything different from the way the US does it at present?

Since I am not an elected official I don’t have any “policy” that I have stored in my file cabinet somewhere. Socialist governments are socialist governments, my suggestion would be to look up the word or read up on what socialism is. You seem upset that I am calling a spade a spade for some reason. I personally don’t care if other countries do things differently, that is for their own people to decide what they like. I have my own views as to how I think government should control our lives, that is the only thing I am trying to express.

How about privatising the police force? How different are they really from doctors and nurses in that they provide a service?

I know, what about privatising the fire-brigade? They would have lots of nice new equipment and they would only go out to those who paid their subscription. So is it socialist the fact that your fire-brigade isn't privatised?

What about NASA. Shouldn't that be privatised and made to fend for itself?

Of course there are basic government functions that have to be funded like building roads and protecting their citizens (that’s police and fire). The problem comes in when government try’s to take over every single aspect of our lives by providing all our needs from cradle to grave. I mean shouldn’t everyone have a house? Why doesn’t the government provide us all houses to live in? Don’t we have to eat? Shouldn’t government provide us food? Of course we need something to wear right to stay warm, shouldn’t the government provide us clothing? Heating Oil? Child Care?...etc. You can go on and on.

You seem to be very angry at something, did the US somehow screw you out of something?

X

[SurfDemon]

Lend Lease, it was in all of the papers.

Er might I quote...

It began in March 1941, nine months before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. It was abruptly stopped by the Americans immediately after V-J day.

So, like I said, in 1939, the US was noticable by it's absence.....

[SurfDemon]

Actually that is wrong. If I was working in the UK I would be taxed at 40% for what I was earning (this band starts at 34,600 pounds which is ~69,200 dollars). Also my capital gains would be taxed at 32.5%. It is 15% in the US. So in other words if I was working in the UK they would be taking twice as much money they are taking from me here in the US. To reiterate my point education is not “free”, healthcare is not “free”, it is all being paid for by the taxpayers.

Okay, I conceed, my exchange rate was completely wrong.

However (you knew there was going to be a however didn't you ), let's look at the tax brackets. (I'm going for a single person here as it's easier to compare)
US
10% $0 - $8000
15% $8000 - $32,500
25% $32,500 - $78,850
28% $78,850 - $164,500
33% $164,500 - $357,700

in the UK (using the exchange rate of 2:1)

Taxable Allowance of $11,000 (so nothing under $11,000 is taxed)
10% $11,000 - $16,000
22% $16,000 - $81,000
40% Over $81,000

So say someone earning $100,000 in the US and Britain
The US person would pay $800 on the first 10%, $3,675 on the 15%, $11,587 on the 25% bracket and $5,922 on the last chunk. Making their Federal Tax bill $21,984. So, Basically 22%.

The UK Person would pay $500 at the 10% rate, $14,300 at the 22% rate and $7,600 for the last chunk. Making their bill $22,400. Or 22.5%

Now hang on, there is another kicker here. I believe that the individual states also tack on state income tax (the above is federal), which can be about another 10%...... there is no such thing in Britain.... so, your original point that Free Education and Health care countries have massively high tax rates would appear to be incorrect.

Just for a laugh (yes I am that sad), I did Canada's rate (also Free Health care). It works out at
$5,682 at 15%, $8,334 at the 22% rate and $6,300 at the 26% rate... which is $20,316 or a tax rate of 20% (for someone earning $100,000)..... which is a couple of points lower than the US tax rate... but hang on, don't us socialist countries have high tax rates....?

P.S. If you were paying twice as much when you were in the UK, then you should get a tax consultant, you should be able to get a chunk of it back.

As to your point of it not being "Free Healthcare" I totally agree. We use the term free in that the patient doesn't have to cough up any money. Of course the money has to come from somewhere, my point is/was that it isn't necessarily coupled to exhobarant tax rates. That seems to be a fallicy that gets banded around by those who are anti-health care for all.

Of course there are basic government functions that have to be funded like building roads and protecting their citizens (that’s police and fire).

What's the difference between a fireman adminsitering first aid to a fire victim, as a nurse administering first aid to a fire victim...? I'm failing to see the distinction between some things being okay to privatise and others not. Don't get me wrong, I actually agree that we shouldn't nanny people from cradle to grave, but that's not the point of free healthcare. This is about saving peoples lives so that they can go on to become useful members of society...

You seem to be very angry at something, did the US somehow screw you out of something?

Not in the slightest, and I apologise if I am coming over that way. I am merely thoroughly enjoying a very good argument. If truth be told I'm not actually a 100% fan of free education, but I am posturing from that point to get the argument going.... personally I think the education should only be "free" if the government has a good chance in earning that money back in the future (through either the taxation of the high earning job or the boost to the economy that skilled workers bring).

Personally I don't think they should be paying for students to study 5 years of the History of Art or French Poetry etc., unless there is either a need for that profession or a decent paying job at the end of it for most of the graduates.....

[Tom Sawyer]

SurfDemon,

Would you please stop cluttering up the debate with facts and well-reasoned logic backed up by hard data. Everyone knows that facts have a distinct liberal bias and can't be trusted.

Government run programs are evil and inefficient. Therefore any argument that says that they are not evil or more efficient than something in the private sector is, by definition, flawed and irrelevant. Please keep that in mind to stop further derailing of people's mindless rants against socialism.

[SurfDemon]

Sorry, very inconsiderate of me.

[Xanith]

Using one example hardly presents the entire picture. Looking at overall tax rates on individuals you will still find the more socialistic countries still have the highest tax rates because more money is needed to fund all of the government programs. Countries like Belgium, France, Germany.

Looking at tax revenues as a percentage of GDP and you will find:
1) Sweden 51.3%
2) Denmark 50.3%
3) Belgium 45.5%
4) Norway 44.3%
5) France 44.0%
15) UK 37%
24) Canada 33.5%
34) US 26.8%

Also looking at the mean income tax rates (which gives a better picture than just 1 example). You will still find that Canada and the UK still put a greater tax burden on their citizens, with the US being around 28% and Canada being around 32%, with the UK coming in around 34%.

But I was talking more about countries such as Belgium (mean taxation around 56%), Germany (52%), and Sweden (48%) who have far more extensive socialistic systems than either Canada or the UK.

But like I said people are free to choose the system they feel comfortable under, and if you want more government control over your life than by all means vote for it (if your free to vote in your country that is).

X

[Tom Sawyer]

But, as SurfDemon mentioned above, that doesn't take tax brackets into account. For lower and middle class people, gross numbers are meaningless.

Also, you're comparing apples and oranges. I live in Canada now and health care expenses are included in my tax rate. I lived in the US a couple of years ago and while I had a lower tax rate, I had to shell out $200/month for health care for my family - and that's having a fulltime job with good benefits. You can't take that expense out and then say that you're getting better value because the rate is a few percentage points lower.

[Xanith]

But, as SurfDemon mentioned above, that doesn't take tax brackets into account. For lower and middle class people, gross numbers are meaningless.

Also, you're comparing apples and oranges. I live in Canada now and health care expenses are included in my tax rate. I lived in the US a couple of years ago and while I had a lower tax rate, I had to shell out $200/month for health care for my family - and that's having a fulltime job with good benefits. You can't take that expense out and then say that you're getting better value because the rate is a few percentage points lower.

Yes gross numbers are meaningless if you are just talking about yourself

But if you want to get the complete picture than you do have to look at them, sorry.

I know all about the Canadian Health care system (my wife is Canadian, and a nurse who worked in the Canadian system). Let me just give you a personal example of the Canadian system that just happened to my wife's Uncle:

He was having chest pains and went to go see the doctor in Canada. He wanted to know if he could have an angiogram or some other test to find out the problem. He was denied by the Canadian system, too costly. Well sure enough 1 month later he had a heart attack, fortunately he had it while shopping in Maine (US). He lived but needed a triple by-pass which was completed by US doctors.

Had the tests been performed in Canada he wouldn’t have had that heart attack. He could have possibly died needlessly.

How does that old saying go? You get what you pay for.

X

[homer13j]

I had to shell out $200/month for health care for my family - and that's having a fulltime job with good benefits.

Obviously not good enough... I have NEVER had to pay for my own health insurance, and the only person I know who does (who's not working for peanuts) owns his own business.

Try this: Drop by any heath clinic in Buffalo or Detroit and ask what percentage of their patients are Canadian. If Canada's socialist system was so great the number should be close to zero, right?

[MasterBlaster]

Okay, I conceed, my exchange rate was completely wrong.

However (you knew there was going to be a however didn't you ), let's look at the tax brackets. (I'm going for a single person here as it's easier to compare)
US
10% $0 - $8000
15% $8000 - $32,500
25% $32,500 - $78,850
28% $78,850 - $164,500
33% $164,500 - $357,700

...................
Not in the slightest, and I apologise if I am coming over that way. I am merely thoroughly enjoying a very good argument. If truth be told I'm not actually a 100% fan of free education, but I am posturing from that point to get the argument going.... personally I think the education should only be "free" if the government has a good chance in earning that money back in the future (through either the taxation of the high earning job or the boost to the economy that skilled workers bring).

Personally I don't think they should be paying for students to study 5 years of the History of Art or French Poetry etc., unless there is either a need for that profession or a decent paying job at the end of it for most of the graduates.....

You should not apologize for coming over that way. You should apologize because you have no Idea in hell what you are talking about. Your calculations regarding the US tax system are off base. First off. If you make $0 - $5,000 a year you are paying 0% income taxes. if you are a full time student at any level you are paying 0% taxes unless you are written off under your parent's account then they pay 0% tax for your income and are refunded a portion of your tuition. Meaning, if you get into college you are not being taxed. Also, I'll use myself as an example. I fall under the 33% category but do not pay 33% of my income to the IRS every year. I have employer provided private health insurance but my dependants do not. I am however given a tax break for having dependants which more than covers that expense. There are also other writeoffs, like charities business expenses ect... If some one in the US does not have health insurance it is because they are f-ing retarded or have parents who are f-ing retarded. I guess that comes back full circle to education. Americans are educated on the public dollar for 12 years. Those who perform the best are generally offered scolarships, Those who don't can go to community or state colleges for free using grants if they are poor or interest/tax free using student loans if they have money and are below to average students. Those who choose to not take advantage of these available options end up shoveling krap the rest of their lives... and that is where they belong. The best of the best are generally given the best education which is why the united stated has managed to improve it's self at such a rapid pace.

[SurfDemon]

X. I can post a converse example. My dad had chest pains and dizzyness. He was in hospital in a "heartbeat", had an angiogram promptly and a cat scan within a matter of days...... I guess it just depends on which hospital you go to.... With any system you can pull up examples of people who get good service and people who get poor service.

Homerj. What are the figures, you don't give us any answers? If there are a lot, how many are people travelling from Canada, and how many are Canadians who live in Detroit etc.? The reason I ask is that I imagine 10% of the people who turn up in Calgary's hospitals are Americans? That might sound shocking until you realise that 10% of the population of Calgary are American.....

[SurfDemon]

You should not apologize for coming over that way. You should apologize because you have no Idea in hell what you are talking about. Your calculations regarding the US tax system are off base. First off. If you make $0 - $5,000 a year you are paying 0% income taxes. if you are a full time student at any level you are paying 0% taxes unless you are written off under your parent's account then they pay 0% tax for your income and are refunded a portion of your tuition.

Okay, I'll conceed that US tax law is not my specialist subject, so what would an average single guy earning $100,000 a year pay in taxes? I am genuinley curious. Thanks in advance.

[SurfDemon]

If some one in the US does not have health insurance it is because they are f-ing retarded or have parents who are f-ing retarded.

Or poor?

[MasterBlaster]

It varies greatly depending on the individual. Questions I would have are, Is he a property owner? Any children? Self employed? Contributes to charity? Employed by non-profit? Yearly work business related expenses? Educational status? Race? Yearly Tax Deferred investments AKA retirement Plans? These are just a few questions. The US tax system is extremly complicated. Average would be between 20% - 28%.

Actually the poor are not the people having problems with lack of health insurance. State Welfare coveres basic care for the poor. It is the lower middle class that is having problems and it is specifically lower middle class people living beyond their means and or not taking advantage of the current system that have this issue. The issue is "Federal" level healthcare. It is not necessary, the states provide for the people who can not afford it already. Lower middle class families making 30 -40K a year need to realize that living in a 200K trach mansion house carrying 30% - 50% of their gross income in unsecured debt and driving thier uninsured kids to soccer practice in a brand new minivan is not an acceptable way to conduct ones personal finances. They also need to realize that their teachers were correct when they said "If you study hard and pay attention in school you will be successfull" repeatedly for 12 years.

[SurfDemon]

Good point. I was unaware that it was the lower-middle class making up the bulk of the uninsured. I just assumed it was the poorest. Thanks for clarifying that. It is unfortunate that there seems to be segment of all societies (regardless of which country you are in) that need to keep spending money on tangible assets (keeping up with the Jones) rather than intangibles (insurance etc.)

[Shaggy Hiker]

This tax debate started silly and got worse. Nobody has come even close to comparing apples to apples, as far as I can see (and MB appears to be off on his own tangent).

There are two main points that nobody made (though MB came VERY close to explicitly stating one of them):

1) Few Americans pay just income tax, and I have no idea to what extent this is true for any other country. To compare income tax and capital gains rates between countries is absurd. A fair comparison is what percent of your gross income goes to taxes, but it would take a bloody accountant to figure that out, even for a person with simple taxes like mine. Everything is taxed, and taxed at a different rate in ways visible and transparent. Good luck trying to figure out how much you have paid in taxes in a year.

2) Even if you look at income tax alone, SD and MB appear to be differing on whether you look at income or taxable income. Since taxable income is dependent on the whole myriad of exemptions, deductions, and stuff like that, figuring your tax rate as a percent of gross earnings is simply wrong. Figuring it out based on taxable income is possible, but since taxable income is unrelated to gross earnings, the comparison is meaningless.

As for our electoral system, somebody cynically mentioned that it was designed to retain power. At the very least, we are well aware that it is a terrible system to represent the will of the people, and we have discussed in this forum at least two systems that are both superior, and well within our grasp. Since there has been plenty of study of the issue, the results are known and demonstrable, and yet there is no real noise about fixing a broken system, I side with the cynic.

Under one of the superior voting systems, there might be a Hillary, there might be a Rudy, and there might be a Ron Paul, but they wouldn't look like they do now, because they would have to run on different issues.