[deebat]

Hi folks,

After flirting with the idea of packing up for NZ for many moons, my lovely fiance and I have decided to do it as soon as we can. And what was the tipping point? Why, the US elections, of course! We worked our tails off to see a change in leadership, but now we're facing the fact that the US is getting uglier despite our efforts. We've decided that our personal peace of mind, as well as that of our future children, is too important to waste.

I've seen many past posts, mostly from Americans, about the political and social climate in the US, but I haven't seen anything since the 2 November elections. Is this the tipping point for others out there? Does anyone on the forum think that NZ is going to see a larger influx of American EOIs in the near future?

Anyway, that's my introduction. Thanks for all the great posts here -- I'm learning so much, so quickly!

-Dan

[Danpoll]

Dear deebat.

Take consilation in the fact that America may still be vunrable from terrorism and world wide hatred but at least gays cant get married and pregnant women dont have rights but hey its not a perfect world. As a limey Iam even more desperate to get away from the UK and mini bush (blair). Lets hope bush does not find oil reserves under NZ coz then we would be in trouble.


Kerry 2008

Regards
Dan

[SoCal Gal]

Hi there Dan, and welcome.
We live in San Diego, we used to live in Portland, small world! We started preparing for a Bush-instigated move to NZ back in Jan, when I submitted my EIO. We weren't selected until Sept. 1, as I had no job offer, but was on the skills list. Still haven't received a packet, like many others I see, even though it still says 'Selected' when I check on NZIS every day.
In August we went down for a week, and actually purchased a house about an hour northwest of Wellington. Then my husband went back for a month in October to try to get the house together, etc. Unfortunately, it appears that our move has stalled completely. Without even a packet to help us feel hopeful, plus two very aged dogs who will never make it through quarantine we've been told, we are feeling more stuck than ever. And absolutely heartbroken over the whole Bush appointment. We too worked incredibly hard to get out the vote, and at least we live in a 'blue state' but really feel at a loss with how America is being percieved right now. I actually burst into tears over some phrase the announcer used on teh BBC news the other night. This vote outcome is not about ALL Americans. But how we are seen now, that we have somehow 'validated' him this time around, scares me to death. Good luck with your move, I hope it works better for you. Read Rich Adams' post, lots of good stuff. And, not to be the least bit discouraging, let me tell you, if you really want to do this, do not get easily discouraged. It can be pretty hard in actuality, but I do say go for it, and hopefully we'll be back on course someday soon.
All the best,
SoCal Gal :cool

[Raeven]

Hi, Dan,

Welcome to the forum! You're joining quite a contingent of Yanks who have been motivated, at least in part, to move to NZ as a result of the madness unfolding here in our own country. Good on you, as my Kiwi husband would say!

Although personally our plans to migrate to NZ just now have been postponed for a number of reasons, with respect to your question about the impact of the political and social climate in the US on our decision to migrate, we reached our tipping point about a year ago. While many Americans have said this recent election was the most important one of our lifetimes, I must humbly disagree; I feel the one in 2000 was. 2004 was of course our best chance at changing the first mistake, but that didn't happen, either. Like you, we're feeling intense pressure to make some enormous changes, and we're doing that. We're consolidating our (meagre) wealth, eliminating all debt, buying land so we can become less reliant on the rest of the country for such things as food, fuel and warmth, and hedging our bets by continuing with our plans to move to NZ at some point in the future while keeping a stake in the States. Like you, we don't trust this government to do the right things by us. We're taking matters more into our own hands, I guess. Never thought I'd sound like a survivalist, but there is some really scary stuff on the horizon. My opinion only, of course.

I do believe that many of the Commonwealth nations, in addition to New Zealand, will see an influx of American immigrants. My American brother, now living in Germany, will not come back to the US with his 16-year old son. They will be moving to Canada out of fear of a future draft. I know of quite a number of others who are actively looking at Australia, Canada, the UK and even Mexico as an alternative to continued US residence under this administration. There's a certain sad irony in that, isn't there? Maybe soon they'll be posting additional guards at the borders to keep us IN! Yikes!!

I think continued political discussions about the outcome of our election here in the US ought probably be confined to The Lounge, but it is interesting to see how many Americans have been galvanized to leave what has always been considered by many to be the most prosperous, welcoming country on the planet for New Zealand by this election. I'm interested to hear what others say, as well.

All the best, Rae

[clg]

Rae,

You are right 2000 was the most important election! After the last 4 years we are on a path that will now be very hard to change with Iraq, deficit, etc....

[deebat]

Thanks for the replies, everyone. My apologies for putting a semi-political thread here instead of in the Lounge; newbie mistake! :oops:

I should have added in my OP that we're not going to bolt the US immediately. My future mother-in-law is elderly and infirm, and we've made the important decision to stay here until, well, you know... :(

plus two very aged dogs who will never make it through quarantine we've been told, we are feeling more stuck than ever

SoCal Gal -- You and I had a brief discussion on the old forum last summer about old dogs. My Yorkie will be 13 years old next month. Did you discover that there's an age limit for quarantined dogs? I also seem to recall that you had a grand plan to live in Hawaii with your dogs for six months(?) before heading off to NZ, which would allow you to avoid quarantine -- I assume that didn't work out. And I'm so sorry to hear your move has stalled! :no These are days for which we apparently need to remind ourselves that good things come to those who wait...right?

Thanks again, everyone. I look forward to joining in more conversations with all of you in the future!

-Dan

[SoCal Gal]

That's right now I remember, Dan, your Yorkie too! Yes, the Hawaii grand scheme was me alright, and we'd still do it in a heartbeat, unfortunately it tacks about $10K on to the move. Plus, we worry about the flight itself, these old guys have really gotten weak in the past few months. NZ will still be there, and hopefully we will be able to get out of here eventually! It's just pretty heartbreaking to think about all the things we've done to get this far, and then to realize, at the most opportune time to leave, that we can't. :-(

[toesonthenose]

Welcome! I think NZ will get some increased interest, but due to distance and expense I think most Americans who are thinking of leaving will think of Canada first. Just load the car and go! I am completely depressed about the elections, and I fear worse is yet to come. If the Republicans can get up to 60 senators in 2006, or 2008, there will be nothing to slow them down. My primary concern is a draft to enforce the democratization (and christian conversion) of the middle east. I know everyone says there won't be a draft, but having 3 sons skews my perspective. And how long can NZ stay out of the large sphere of American influence? If you read some stuff of the NZ national party, it appears that if they gained power they would significantly cozy up to Bush/US interests. Look at Australia, US troops and bases in the north, probably staging points for SE Asia, Indonesia. I fear we are living in Germany in the early 1930's!
Best Wishes in your decisions.

[deebat]

Just saw an eye-catching story on the Stuff website (reprinted here):

Disillusioned Yanks eye NZ
06 November 2004
By ANN-MARIE JOHNSON

Inquiries from Americans wanting to move to New Zealand have "exploded" since George W Bush was re-elected president.

The Immigration Service's website had 10,300 hits from the United States the day after the election. Usually it gets 2500 hits a day.

And the phones of its US marketing directors in Los Angeles, San Francisco and Portland, Oregon, have been ringing nonstop since the election.

Marketing director Don Badman said there had been up to 300 telephone calls and emails a day.

"We've been doing this for 11 months and it's been building up to about six to eight calls a day, but from Thursday it's exploded. It really started picking up from 11pm the night of the election."

The San Francisco Chronicle reported that many Americans were inquiring about moving to New Zealand, Australia and Canada as a result of the election.

<snip>


The story in full can be found at http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3087905a10,00.html .

Looks like we're not alone out there!

-Dan

[Pakeha Boy]

Recent press report in the UK stated that the Germans were expecting the Queen to apologise for the fire bombing of Dresden towards the end of WWII. The response from a political pundit was "they started it, they reaped the whirlwind".
That shameful election result will only bring the same mindset from the Islamic boyos. Poor old America, prepare for your own whirlwind, and you right thinking decent souls, get out while you can!
Over dramatic statement? I think not.
As a lot of you know, I work here in Egypt with 90% of the rig crew being Muslim. What I've been hearing here since "The Devil" got re-instated is un-nerving at best, and this is coming from your run-of-the-mill working men who aren't even "that" Muslim (evident by the number of them in the galley at lunchtime during Ramadan!). I certainly don't care to imagine what the radical hardliners are planning for the Great Satan and his imps, but it's not sunday dinner at their place!
Anyway, I guess what I'm trying to say is, and what has been said oft times on this forum; those war-mongering, short-sighted and dangerous republican fools are doing NZIS the biggest favour of all by driving all the best and brightest right into the arms New Zealand where their intelligence and talents can be harnessed to increase NZs economy and standing around the world......ha, for NZ$36,000 a year...brilliant!
But hey, what price sanctuary eh?
:cheers

PS, where has that little scamp Kamus got to? This thread will be right up his alley :nice1

[coastcat]

We've discussed our emigration plans with another couple, who until this week thought we were a little crazy. This afternoon, I got an email from them with a link to the Canada immigration self-assessment test, noting that they have enough points to pass easily even without a job offer. I also received an email from an online acquaintance who had heard that I had been researching emigration - now she's thinking about heading for Canada as well.

But we'll see how many actual PR applications result from all these web page hits. It hasn't affected our decision, since we're already resolved to leave.

[drumminj]

I'm not saying that I am of the same mind or not - you can find that out by reading old posts, but....

One election doesn't go your way, so you're going to move to another country? What happens when the elections don't go your way in New Zealand, or Canada, or wherever else you choose to move?

If this really is your only motivation for moving to another country, I really think you should reconsider, as the executive branch will undergo another change in 4 years. Besides, the executive branch doesn't have unchecked power - Congress voted the exec the power to go into Iraq and Afghanistan. Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act.

The dems seemed to focus only on the president, and didn't make a big deal about the many other leaders in this country. Change can happen - and not just by changing the president. Most people seem to have lost sight of that, and that's one of the things that bothers me about the state of this country. That, and the fact that 11 states OVERWHELMINGLY voted to restrict the rights of a subset of the population.

Regardless, if you have other motivations (I suspect you do), please share. There already was one thread about Americans and their reasons for leaving. It's always good to hear a new perspective.

J

(by the way - the five second rule applies to pancakes that hit the floor while you're cooking breakfast and posting to the internet, right???)

[Raeven]

J!!!

It's good to have you back and posting!!

You are absolutely correct, things will change again in another 4 years and Congress has much to answer for. Ultimately, the people of this country also have much to answer for. I don't want to hear one more word from any person who voted for GWB when they complain about their son/husband/brother not coming home from Iraq for another 6 months; I don't want to listen to whining if their phones are tapped or e-mail perused without permission; don't even yammer at me when the asthma kicks in from smoggy skies or buying bottled water becomes the norm because it's ok to pollute natural water sources again. Americans can watch reality tv shows in droves, but they can't pay attention to the reality of what's happening to their freedoms and rights!

I am not a Democrat as you know, and I have had my differences with many of the Presidents of this country. Yet I must hold this one accountable as I have no other. It's not even him so much as his Neocon band o' brothers -- it's Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith and Company. There IS an agenda with this group, they've had it planned for years and they're implementing with zeal. Pinky is just the front for the Brain. There has been significant misconduct with this administration, yet the public at large is so obsessed with what's happening in people's bedrooms (an easy judgment call, if you're among the religious right) that they don't pay attention to the other stuff, which is harder to tease out.

LOL, and yes, let's hope that 5-second rule does apply!!!

Always appreciate your views.

All the best, Rae

[Lisa.C]

Hi I liked this article from the Scotsman, thought it may be of interest..


Quote:
Stewart Kirkpatrick
skirkpatrick at scotsman dot com

You've got to hand it to George Walker Bush. Everyone in the world thought he was a moronic, mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging, mindless puppet doing the bidding of his super-rich, neo-con, oil-soaked paymasters while paying lip service to the concerns of the great unwashed.

Instead it turns out he's a political genius.

The American economy is going down the toilet. It has a budget deficit ($4 trillion over the next 10 years) that would make Kim Jong Il blush. Worryingly, China and Hong Kong have accumulated $177 billion of US debt, giving the world's biggest dictatorship a great deal of economic power over the world's richest democracy.

Vast amounts have been squandered on enormous tax cuts that disproportionately favour the super-wealthy (the bottom 60% of US society got a mere 14.7% of Bush's $1.6 trillion giveaway, while the richest 1% got half of it). Meanwhile unemployment has rocketed. And for George, healthcare is just another word that begins with "h", like "Iran". In short, the ordinary American is getting royally shafted by the Bush administration.

And yet Dubya persuaded the suckers to vote for him. The man's a genius.

How'd he do it? Well, he made them scared. Not in the way he makes us scared - by having his finger on the nuclear trigger while looking very dim and slightly deranged - but by raising mythical bogeymen to terrify middle America.

After the horrific attacks on the US on 11 September, 2001, the Bush administration should have dedicated all its resources to hunting down Osama bin Laden and his little helpers. Instead, after taking out the Taliban in Afghanistan (a good move spoiled slightly by the chaotic mess that country is currently in), Dubya decided to focus on Iraq: a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

Despite all the lies about weapons of mass destruction, al-Qaeda training camps and uranium from Nigeria, Saddam Hussein was as great a threat to the US as my mum. (Note to any neo-cons who might be reading: this means that the Iraqi leader was not a threat at all. It does not mean you should carpet-bomb my mum's house or have her deposed in a right-wing coup.)

Careful use of terror alerts have kept swing voters good and jumpy so that they chose the "tough" George Dubya Bush over the "sane" John Kerry. This despite the fact that the Iraq adventure has made America more of a terrorist target than it was before and that American (and British) servicemen are dying there at a frightening rate.

And yet Dubya persuaded the suckers to vote for him. The man's a genius.

As a result we're in for an exciting four years of unfettered neo-con crusading. Especially if you live in or near a member of the axis of evil: Iran, North Korea, Palestine, Syria, Libya, Venezuela, the Pitcairn Islands, France, San Francisco...

On the brighter side, US domestic policy's going to be dictated by extreme fundamentalists so the colonials might as well tear up that precious consitution of theirs and replace it with the Book of Leviticus.

And yet Dubya persuaded the suckers to vote for him. The man's a genius. Truly, we "misunderestimated" him.

Lisa..

[coastcat]

Interesting article. But what it doesn't point out is a key factor in Dubya's win. A lot of people who did not agree with his foreign policy or economic policy voted for him anyway because they favored his moral policy. In other words, it was more important to them to have someone in the White House (and Congress, and the state houses) who would work to outlaw gay rights, reproductive freedom, scientific freedom, etc, in the name of an ultra-conservative brand of religion. I think many of the people who have flocked to the immigration websites this week had been shocked to realize just how far to the right this country leans as a whole, and stunned to discover what much of the country believes are the truly important issues.

Five-second rule definitely applies. Mmm, pancakes.

[drumminj]

coastcat: good point. Many people seem to have voted for Bush because he believes the same things that they do. Most I've spoken with don't seem to care if that falls in line with what's best for the country and the people in it, or whether it's constitutional or not.

Rae: I'm still here. Was in Canada for the past week. Interesting to watch the election from the "51st state". One point you make I have issue with:


I don't want to listen to whining if their phones are tapped or e-mail perused without permission;

If congress has a lot to answer for - and they're the ones that passed the USA PATRIOT Act, what does voting for Bush have to do with being allowed to complain about that?

You know that we agree pretty much overall. Just seems like your commentary is a bit contradictory.

I'm happy to make pancakes for one and all. It's the one thing I can actually cook on my own. I eat out for every other meal :)

J

[Raeven]

Hi, J,

A fair criticism. My statement is contradictory and bears some explaining. I guess it's just the whole turn-to-the-right thing that's happened here which leaves me outraged. I've been a moderate centerist all my life, and suddenly without moving, I've become this flaming leftist liberal!! Huh??

The thing about the "Patriot Act" that frosts my cookies is the nasty, sneaky way in which it was legislated -- in the middle of the night with no one even having read the horrid thing -- including the idiot congressmen who voted for it. These kinds of tactics have become the norm for the Republicans: The bait and switch, the cloak and dagger, the bald-faced lying, and so I lump GWB right in there with the rest of them. No other administration ever set such a tone. I mean, people are actually laughing off the "wrinkle" in GWB's suit from the second debate that looked so much like a transmitter of some kind! I'm sorry, but when did cheating in a national debate become something to just chuckle at and not investigate and prosecute fully?

coastcat, your point is extremely well taken. I no longer understand a country where gay marriage is a more important issue than young men dying or becoming irrevocably maimed in an unwarranted illegal war, but there it is.

Lisa, thank you for sharing Mr. Kirkpatrick's view with us. He's dead on. And, as I feared, there is much less understanding for an American population who would be dumb enough to vote GWB in for a second term -- to which I can only implore, please remember that 49% of us did NOT!

Oh, to heck with pancakes.. I'm reaching for the chocolate!!

Still bitter, Rae

[Lisa.C]

Lisa, thank you for sharing Mr. Kirkpatrick's view with us. He's dead on. And, as I feared, there is much less understanding for an American population who would be dumb enough to vote GWB in for a second term -- to which I can only implore, please remember that 49% of us did NOT!

Oh, to heck with pancakes.. I'm reaching for the chocolate!!

Still bitter, Rae

Hey no worries Rae, I have many American friends and take everyody as an individual wherever they happen to be from, that's just me, not sure everybody feels that way though. :roll: I have a feeling the British will be next to follow your lead, I reckon Blair will call an early election on the back of Bush's victory and the result will probably go the same way. We will continue to support American policy in the Middle East because we want a $slice of the pie$. :uhoh :uhoh, can I share your chocolate? :smile

[coastcat]

I've eaten a ridiculous amount of chocolate since Tuesday night. It hasn't helped. How about chocolate pancakes? (dropping them on the floor is optional)

I'd be very curious to see a 1-year followup, with a comparison of American emigration numbers before and after this election. Despite this flurry of enquiry, I somehow doubt the numbers will be up significantly. But you never know...

(and now I'm really in the mood for chocolate pancakes, or chocolate chip pancakes, or anything else starchy and heavily buttered)

[Gran]

Hi Raeven, Coastcat et al,
I have been wondering where all our Americans have got to lately, now they are back with a vengeance having had a good think after the 2nd. Yeehar !! go for it ladies, and guys as well, welcome back. Quite frankly I cannot see many of the new enquiries resulting in Kiwis, as we all know there is a long distance and a lot of work between an enquiry and boarding that plane. W. will give them a tax cut and they will be happy again. LOL
Gran

[kamus]

PS, where has that little scamp Kamus got to? This thread will be right up his alley :nice1

Ahem....
I'm still here-still in deep shock over the election and it's pretty much of a case of don't get me $%^&# started...

Sorry I haven't been posting (some of you have no doubt been relieved :yes ) It's been a combination of periodic depression over our stalled NZ plan and the fact that I've been on tour with the political satire group that I perform with. Like Arnold says "I'll be baaack" and soon. Certainly the reluctance of 51% of Americans to change Horsemen mid-Apocalypse has got my blood going again.

Those of you who've been here a while know that we already reached our tipping point and now we've gone and actually fallen completely over. Too bad we're now going to have to compete with thousands of undoubtedly better qualified Americans.

Uh-oh gotta go now- I think I hear the Religious Thought Police at my window. I don't think the soles of my feet can take another "reprogramming session" :uhoh

-Dave

[Moorf]

Please please don't let us Brits vote Blair back in.... :wah :wah

I'm not a political bunny but I knew that I didn't want to see Bush back in power... are there any theories out there as to why he got back in? Who are these people voting for him?

Having said that, from what I'd seen/heard about Kerry it wasn't as if the Americans had a particularly viable alternative?

[shagen]

I am not a Amarican or a Brit but am particularly interested in world politics as it affects all of us!

Apart from Blair, I think Helen Clark was also pleased over the outcome of the US elections or at least that is how it came across to me in the NZ Herald online, after Kerry conceded.

We know where the Americans went with their vote, but do the Brits have an alternative to Blair? Does he have a worthy opponent?

Any thoughts on the NZ election, and what how it might affect us - would be migrants?

Cheer,

[Annierobrigado]

welcome back, kamus, drumminj, rae, coastcat...

i offer my sympathies to the 49% of america, you will now contend with dubya for the next 4 years. why can't you elect harrison ford?! :angel

i have an ant's view of world politics in general and can only sigh and shake my head at things going on today. mr bush is back in the white house, and mrs. arroyo (our prez) is being snubbed by her former "best friend" and partner in the "fight against terrorism". If gloria and george don't kiss and make-up at the APEC summit, then, woe to the republic of the philippines and our american aid$$. we will slip further down the quicksand of debt and progress as we know it will only be the brand name of an infant formula milk. what progress? we're just better than laos and cambodia. and still we and the us are partners in the fight against terrorism. (although we're no longer a member of the coalition of the willing.)

gwb snubs gma because she had the "gall" to withdraw our humanitarian troops from iraq 10 days before the prescribed date, just to save a filipino truck driver, who was just ferrying supplies to and from the camps, from being beheaded? Mr. ANgelo dela Cruz was released from captivity after the filipino contingent moved out, and we are grateful to the iraqi people for sparing our countryman. but because of this, the rest of our countrymen who are waiting to acquire visas to visit the US are now having a very difficult time (it used to be just difficult, now I need the adverb). Ok, fine, whatever! :roll:

so again, my condolences to the 49% american public, and i still believe you should have gone with harrison ford.

BTW, don't you think it's kinda weird that just days before the election, mr osama bin laden delivers a tape that reminded the american public of 9/11 and so tipped the scales for dubya? i mean, i really thought, based on the campaign frenzy, that kerry was gonna overtake bush in the end. but with that tape...

... i mean, right after 9/11 the family of bin laden was sent away in airplanes (not sure whether they were escorted) during the time that ALL air and sea traffic were supposedly grounded???

okay, how about a jug over at nz pubs? :cheers

annie

[kamus]

welcome back, kamus, drumminj, rae, coastcat...

i offer my sympathies to the 49% of america, you will now contend with dubya for the next 4 years. why can't you elect harrison ford?! :angel
______


BTW, don't you think it's kinda weird that just days before the election, mr osama bin laden delivers a tape that reminded the american public of 9/11 and so tipped the scales for dubya? i mean, i really thought, based on the campaign frenzy, that kerry was gonna overtake bush in the end. but with that tape...
________


okay, how about a jug over at nz pubs? :cheers

annie

Hi Annie

I'm not sure the Bin Laden tape was all that good for Bush. One interesting thing about that tape was that most of it was neither quoted nor shown. In the CNN transcript mention was made that OBL said he didn't care whether it was Bush or Kerry and that American's security was in the hands of the people. Turns out, he never said anything about Kerry at all, according the official Al Jazeera translation. That reference seems to have been added to the CNN version.....hmmmm

There were a number of interesting diversions between the two translations
however translations show that OBL gives a fairly scathing indictment of the Bush administration. It's worth checking out because the view of OBL that emerges is significantly at odds with the characterization by the Bush administration. I'm not for a moment condoning the senseless barbarism of the events of 9/11. But it is interesting where later in his speech he makes the point that he and Bush are, in fact, tacit allies!

As usual there is more to the story than we are led to believe. You can read about it the two versions here (http://www.marktaw.com/print/blog/ATaleofTwoOsamas.html)

Dave

P.S. that beer looks awfully good around now

[deebat]

Hi folks -- I sure wish I hadn't taken the weekend away from the computer; looks like this first thread of mine has grown some wings!

Jason, my apologies for kicking in a new thread about an old topic, but it was slightly different enough, I thought, to warrant a fresh start. (My main question was about whether anyone thought more Americans would be heading to NZ because of the election.) Anyway, sorry for clunking around and not keeping this terrific forum tidy! :no

Our reasons for leaving do go beyond the election, as you surmised. As is the case with many people here, my fiancee and I are looking for a place in which we can find a form of serenity that weaves itself into our lives and comes along with us each day, as opposed to the type that we invariably leave behind at our doorstep when we head outside into America. This country is not a kind place, and it's getting worse. It seems to us that despite all the meditation, the gentle friends, and the good works we do for others, we are unable to stay above the coarseness of American society. It's possible that we're just weak noodles, sure, but I think it's more probable that this country simply isn't where we belong. It's certainly not a place we want to raise children.

And yes, I have other, more specific, motivations. The restriction of gay rights in 11 states (including my current state of Oregon, blast it) was crushing; apparently, the relationship that my mother and her loving, wonderful same-sex partner of 28 years had was not "legal" -- in fact, it appears the country has essentially recoiled in horror at the thought. And my mother's death from asbestos poisoning a few years ago is supported by our vice-president, who made a fortune buying a company linked to asbestos and selling his shares of stock before the price plummeted. So yes, I have a personal grudge about my fellow countrymen and our leadership, too.

In four years, the electorate will get another chance to change things. The current leadership's personalities will be altered (thankfully because we have term limits), but how much will the electorate change? How do we change a selfish, lazy and entertainment-driven population on the head of a dime?

At what point is it acceptable for individuals to choose to cut their losses and try to make the most of their life's opportunities elsewhere? I just don't want to look back at my life when I'm a pensioner (I'm 37 now) and say, darn, we should've taken that plane to NZ when our hearts were screaming for us to do it and we had the wherewithal to make it happen.

:eek Gosh, I just went overboard there! :eek Well, now you all know me much more than I ever would have thought to share... sorry for the rant, but I guess you all know how serious we are about NZ now...

Take care,
Dan

[Lisa.C]

Hi Deebat,

I have friends in Portland ( forest Grove) and have visited, from my understanding Oregon is a forward thinking liberal State? what is happening, are Americans attitudes changing? are Oregonians reversing the trend? Maybe slightly off topic but am interested.

[kamus]

Bravo, Deebat! Your post was far from overboard, but rather an eloquent summation of things a lot of your fellow Americans also feel.

As far as Oregon goes, like much of America there is a population split between the urban/college town types and the rural contingent. I think the Dems were caught flat footed on the gay marriage issue and consequently failed to formulate an effective counter tactic to the Republican fearmongering. I think it could have been done as I've yet to hear a rational explanantion for what exactly is threatened by same sex unions. But the dems were too busy prosecuting their own election issues and failed to see the threat.

It's a sad day in "the Land of the Free" when the decisive issue in an election is about repressing others rights. Yesterday Rove said that Bush fully intends to go ahead with the Constitutional ban on gay marriage.

America stands insecurely at the top of the slippery slope and seems poised to slide all the way down.

-Dave

[bbq]

SLightly off topic, but a view from the economist in the Bank I work for on the US$ projection. May be of interest to our US posters - Please don't shoot the messenger :no

alex

The failure of the dollar to derive any support at all from the far stronger than expected employment report from the US on Friday points to a very grim outlook for the dollar in the near-term. Structural factors now dominate market thinking with cyclical factors being completely ignored. Rising interest rate expectations on signs that recent oil price increases may not have the impact on consumer spending that was expected is being ignored due to growing concerns that four more years of President Bush will result in worsening budget and current account deficits. With the foreign exchange market now focused entirely on the problem of the US budget and current account deficits, there is a real risk that dollar selling becomes a crisis of confidence. We maintain that the widening US current account deficit is a global problem and is more related to demand imbalances and will only be rectified when the US, the euro-zone and Japan coordinate policy to bring about slower domestic demand growth in the US and stronger growth in the euro-zone and Japan. That will not happen in the near-term and hence foreign exchange market participants will continue to take the view that the US authorities want this until signalled otherwise. Although Dallas Fed President McTeer is leaving the Federal Reserve we believe his comment that the only direction for the dollar is down along with other Fed members negative comments on the current account issue are having a significant bearing on current dollar sentiment. Until the US authorities counter these negative comments the dollar is unlikely to recover. The current dollar sentiment is sure to be concerning the authorities in Tokyo. We maintain that the 103.42 intra-day low of the year on 1st April is the key level and a breach of 104.00 brings intervention into play. This uncertainty over intervention is likely to ensure that dollar selling is more pronounced against other currencies.

[Diny]

Kamus

Good to see you back !!

Diny

[kamus]

Kamus

Good to see you back !!

Diny

Thanks Diny! Glad to be back.

Alex- I've seen other reports that echo the one you quoted. Of the many ramifications of the weakening dollar, the most serious from the POV of the Americans here, is the poor exchange rate of dollars vs. NZ dollars. I know at least one poster here who has had to abandon immediate plans for immigration due to this factor. The sad thing is that it doesn't look likely to improve any time soon.

-Dave

[Raeven]

Hi, Alex,

Nah, we won't shoot the messenger... and thank you for posting a concise explanation of what's going on with the US dollar. It's not a mystery to those of us who have been paying attention to such things (debt! debt! debt!), and as your quote points out, it ain't gonna change anytime soon.. which is one reason why we formulated our Oregon fall-back plan. Depressing, very depressing.

Dave, it's great to see you back and posting!! I'm sorry we missed meeting up in Oregon, and once Steve and I have moved and gotten ourselves into a routine, I plan to follow your Capitol Steps itinerary and travel great, inconvenient distances to catch your act. I understand your depression re stalled plans to NZ, believe me, I do. I wish NZ was more understanding of highly qualified migrants who don't fit neatly into their boxes, but hey, I hear Vancouver is a wonderful place to live...?

Moorf, I appreciate what you're saying about Kerry not appearing to be a viable alternative, but I suppose that begs the question, what IS a viable alternative? Mr. Kerry, while not especially sexy or comfortable in front of the cameras, does have a solid congressional record and has served his country courageously and honorably for most of his lifetime. His record, because it is lengthy, is somewhat complicated to follow -- which seems to put it out of the grasp of the average American. Bush was able to create an impression that Kerry had an ultra-liberal congressional record because Kerry came to the conclusion that most Americans wouldn't be able to comprehend the nuances of it and therefore chose to not attempt to explain it to them. Too bad; he's not that liberal.

Mr. Kerry attempted repeatedly to keep the tone of the campaign on actual issues and to include truth in his legitimate attacks on Bush & Co.'s handling of the economy, the war in Iraq and the war on terror. I don't think he realized until much too late in the game that playing nice wasn't going to work. When Kerry criticized Bush for his policies, his criticisms were based in fact. When Bush criticized Kerry, the words coming out of his mouth were outright lies. It was beyond appalling, but few paid attention to the underlying facts and simply accepted the flying accusations from both camps as true. Unfortunately, they were only true on one side. So I suppose Kerry could be validly accused of not being dirty enough to play the game and therefore not qualified.

Kerry is honorable, forthright, altruistic, tough, caring, supportive of personal freedoms, accountable, brave, intelligent, fiscally conservative (at least compared to the current administration), experienced, dedicated and does have an actual sense of humor. He means what he says, although it is true he does often say it with too much thought and complexity for most people to get. But really, what is it about him that isn't viable? I don't know how much more we have a right to expect from our leaders. I find it extremely sad how many Americans base their votes on snap judgments made on how someone comes across on television ("I just don't trust him." "Why? Have you checked out his record?" "No; I just don't trust him."), as if that is a reasonable criteria for casting one's vote. In repeated polls, Bush came out on top when voters were asked which candidate with whom they'd prefer to have a beer. So I guess a guy who's good to have a beer with is a guy who's qualified to run a country, despite all objective evidence to the contrary. We get what we deserve.

I'm sorry, Moorf, this isn't directed personally at you at all -- just another one of my many raw nerves at the moment... I apologize to you!! I really should go to my corner and sulk quietly for a few months.

Reaching again for the chocolate, Rae

[bbq]

Dave (Kamus) said

Alex- I've seen other reports that echo the one you quoted. Of the many ramifications of the weakening dollar, the most serious from the POV of the Americans here, is the poor exchange rate of dollars vs. NZ dollars. I know at least one poster here who has had to abandon immediate plans for immigration due to this factor. The sad thing is that it doesn't look likely to improve any time soon.


My thoughts as well, and I feel real bad for those who have made all their plans based upon a certain FX rate, just to have them tossed aside.

Its affecting us in the UK as well, and I am particularly worried that the GBP may follow the USD as Blair follows GW!.. Probably not a good economic argument to support that fear, but I have it anyway.

Of course, the rate where it is, is good news for any NZ residents going the other way, and I know there are some.

Good luck all

alex :?

p.s. May I add my welcome back to all the Yankee posters!

[deebat]

I have friends in Portland ( forest Grove) and have visited, from my understanding Oregon is a forward thinking liberal State? what is happening, are Americans attitudes changing? are Oregonians reversing the trend?

Hi, Lisa,

I think Dave (kamus) put it quite well by saying that Oregon is caught up in the same unfortunate black-and-white fearmongering issues that the rest of the country is now foundering in. When GWB said, "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists," his words reverberated throughout all the fringe emotional issues in America: you're either with "us" (that is, gay-fearing evangelicals) or you're with the gays; you're either with "us" (that is, those who favor tax cuts -- even if the cuts are really only for the wealthiest 2% in the country), or you're with the tax-and-spend liberals; etc., etc., ad nauseam. Americans don't like to deal with hazy gray areas (i.e., they don't like to think!).

Oregon does have a bright side, however; the plurality of votes for Kerry was larger in 2004 than it was for Gore in 2000. Although there certainly are many conservatives in the rural areas of the state, it appears that an active urban electorate can make a difference here.

Thanks for the discussions!
-Dan

[Lisa.C]

Dan and Dave
Thankyou for taking the time to post those interesting and informative replies, appreciated and taken 'on board'..... lessons learned all round hopefully! :yes
Cheers :nice1

[Annierobrigado]

hello guys

Non-US nations - particularly mine - are very dependent on what happens to the US, no matter what our leaders say. our umbilical cord with the us has never fallen off, and i daresay it will never fall off. whatever happens to the states will reflect on our country, and unless we grow up overnight, i think we will be dependent on the us for a long long time. it's sad, and unfair for the filipino and american people, but our leaders have brought us to this, and who elected our leaders, but us? kamus said we get what we deserve, and this mantra has been sung over and over through the years. sometimes i wish the states would just leave the rest of the world alone, but it has taken the role of the justice league so, it can't help trying to "save" the others from "evil". I may be simplistic in my analysis (i leave that to the guys) but the truth hurts, really.

let's drown our sorrows over a pint -- or better yet a keg. you want a whole distillery?

:cheers
annie

[kamus]

Great post(s) Rae. You wrote it so I don't have to- thanks!

Annie, I pity you and Jess and the other Filipinos at the mercy of US foreign policy. I was just reading a little Filipino history the other day and was struck at how often the US has exploited and essentially betrayed you guys in the past. It's a wonder that after something like the burning of Manila and the desertion of MacArthur in WWII that you guys are still allies with the US. Looks like nothing has changed much in US-Filipino relations since then.

It's very interesting to hear your perspective.

-Dave

[drumminj]

even if the cuts are really only for the wealthiest 2% in the country

I'm going to think about all the other posts here, but wanted to address this one issue, as it's a "hot-button" topic for me.

The tax cut benefitted me. And I'm definitely not in the top 2% of the country. To talk in terms of absolute dollar amounts rather than in terms of percentages when it comes to taxation is to use a completely irrelevant metric.

Regardless, I agree there are many issues. My issue isn't with the tax cut - personally, it's my money, and I want the government taking as little of it by gunpoint as possible. My issue is the fact that spending was not curtailed commensurate with the tax cut.

But, I'm just a cynical libertarian, as I have been labeled by my friend. I "threw my vote away" this election, and will be sure to burn in hell for doing so.

Oh yeah, I can be sarcastic as well :)

J

[Moorf]

Hey Rae - thanks for that post re Kerry - as I said before, I'm not a dedicated follower of politics so always keen to see what others think :nice1 I also play poker with alot of Americans online and was always asking them their opinions - amazing what it can do to a table of players when you throw THAT topic into the fray!

Will be interesting to see which old relic they'll stick up against Blair!!

[Annierobrigado]

. I was just reading a little Filipino history the other day and was struck at how often the US has exploited and essentially betrayed you guys in the past. It's a wonder that after something like the burning of Manila and the desertion of MacArthur in WWII that you guys are still allies with the US. Looks like nothing has changed much in US-Filipino relations since then.

It's very interesting to hear your perspective.

-Dave

yes, nothing has changed since then, although these days there are more anti-US sentiments already than before. but, as you probably have learned, the filipino has a short memory, and what we call "pusong mamon" (soft heart). whatever sins the us committed against us in the name of national security, we are ready to accept and put behind us.

there was a time when the national anger stoked the fires of nationhood and thus the "people power revolution" came about. During that time the US (or reagan) was a very close ally of the dictator marcos, and although reagan in the end finally advised marcos to "give it up", the US still betrayed the Philippines by aiding and abetting the dictator by whisking him and his family off in a huey (i think) and esconcing them in Hawaii. He was in exile, but to us it was like a long, well funded vacation care of uncle sam.

Gloria and George are allies but i think there is some cooling off, I don't know. GMA is adept at hedging what truly is happening with her.

There are still many who would move heaven and earth to go to the states, not only because they still believe in the american dream, but because there are so many filipinos there, it would be easy to adjust to american life at least with "kababayans" around. But i think many are shying away from the states because of your foreign policies and because it is downright impossible to get a US visa. Many would try for Canada, and later cross the border to the states, or others would just become "overseas contract workers" in Japan, the Middle East, Canada, other Asian countries, UK, Ireland, Italy, France, Germany practically the whole world! They would earn in dollars and spend in pesos. The price they pay however would be separation from the family, loneliness, discrimination, abuse, exploitation, sometimes death.

But we're a hardy lot, though! and there's so many of us anyway, so...

thanks for the interest in our history, we appreciate the americans who take time to learn about us and therefore understand us, rather than those americans who don't even know where the philippines is on the map.

by the way, when everything turns out ok, we'll both be kiwis, so that's a different history and culture altogether! I promised you a cup of coffee before (or was that douglas?) and a pint, when we meet up in nz. keep in touch!

:cheers
annie

[deebat]

Hi Jason,

Yeah, I exaggerated a bit about the "2%" -- but the fact remains, the wealthiest Americans have made out like gangbusters thanks to this admininstration. (I, too, have benefitted, and I'm not even close to the top two percent!)

I know several libertarians who sound a lot like you, and they're all good people who simply possess strong feelings about how their lives should be led. Most of them just don't want to be told to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle, or seatbelts while driving a car. Sounds fine with me, as long as I don't have to pay for their cracked skulls!

You didn't throw your vote away if you voted your conscience. Good on ya for doing it.

Best,
Dan

[kamus]

Since everyone is just guessing at the Bush tax cut figures, I thought I'd look them up. Here is a clarification from a recent roundup of the first four years of the Bush administration that appeared recently in a very well regarded daily paper, The Scotsman

...the bottom 60% of US society got a mere 14.7% of Bush's $1.6 trillion giveaway, while the richest 1% got half of it.

A gross inequity any way you slice it.

-Dave

[drumminj]

...the bottom 60% of US society got a mere 14.7% of Bush's $1.6 trillion giveaway, while the richest 1% got half of it.

A gross inequity any way you slice it.

-Dave


I have to disagree. Correlate those numbers with the tax burden placed on those demographics. If person A makes 1 dollar, and person B makes 1000 dollars, and everyone gets a 3% tax cut. Person A gets $.03 back. Person B gets $30. Is person A getting screwed? Well, I suppose it depends on what you consider fair. Certainly Person A shouldn't get $30 back, if he/she is only paying $.15 in taxes to begin with.

People in the top 1% pay way more in taxes, proportionally, than the bottom 60%(especially with a progressive tax). Of course they're going to get a higher percentage of the "give away" if the amount is in any way correlated with the amount of tax they pay.

But Dave, you and I may have a very different definition of fair. I suspect that we do.

J

[deebat]

The bottom line for me isn't made up of the dollar amounts and percentages of the Bush tax cut. Rather, it's the way this administration (and really, our society in general) regards the poorest and weakest among us. If the old saying is true, that a country is only as strong as its weakest citizen, then, thanks to the attitude and policies of this administration, we've become a very weak nation in the past four years.

-Dan

[Raeven]

The bottom line for me isn't made up of the dollar amounts and percentages of the Bush tax cut. Rather, it's the way this administration (and really, our society in general) regards the poorest and weakest among us. If the old saying is true, that a country is only as strong as its weakest citizen, then, thanks to the attitude and policies of this administration, we've become a very weak nation in the past four years.

-Dan

Hi, Dan,

Very eloquently put. I can only add that much of my outrage re the tax cuts originates from the same place as J's -- WTF are we doing giving tax cuts to ANYONE when we have increased homeland security costs to pay for (or should), as well as the war on terror AND this miserable, mindless, gun-totin', shoot-'em-up conflict in Iraq that has already cost $120 billion and another $75 billion now just "requested" from GWB??? Historically, we have NEVER gone to war in this country and given a tax cut simultaneously. It's the idiotic arithmetic that makes me scream like an unhinged creature at the TV. This debt.. it's simply unacceptable. We are on a precipice of our own making, and it's more dangerous than most seem to think. China now owns (if memory serves) about $166 billion of our debt; the Saudis even more. Foreign markets are already losing confidence in our ability to repay it, and that has caused the dollar to hit an all-time low. Like Japan in the early 90s, we could see a currency slide that creates an American peso in the blink of an eye. But GWB just spends, spends, spends, like there is no limit on the credit card.

What would I do if I couldn't vent here? I can't think!!

Moorf, you are so delightfully funny!! I laughed out loud when I read about your disruptive conversation with American online poker players -- what fun you must be having!!! Good on ya, girl!!

Annie, super cool post. Because of you, I am learning a lot about the Philippines, although I did already know where you are on a map!! Thanks for your "on-the-ground" assessment and point of view.

All the best, Rae

[drumminj]

Rae: I don't know how to say this without sounding quite coarse, but you can always pay MORE in taxes if you'd like. People who think the tax cuts are bad can gladly send more money into the IRS. I doubt they'll reject it. My problem is with the spending, not the cuts, though, and I think you agree?

re: bringing up politics in inappropriate places. I was in Canada last week. First off, it was fun seeing the election coverage from another country, but it was also interesting chatting with the people up North. I was up there for work, and at a seminar I sat down at a table with some of our Canadian customers. It seemed the felt the need to bring up every hot-button issue. They asked me about the election. About the economy (will it get better?) Also about the war. I guess they're not much for small talk :)

A point that has been made a couple times today that I'm curious about - how is it that the poorest and weakest are worse off these days than they were 4 years ago? I don't mean that as a challenge, or in jest. I really don't know, and am curious what makes you all feel that way. I'm just not well-enough informed. All I know is that people now are getting $1k tax CREDIT (not deduction) for each kid (might even be more). So even if you don't pay taxes, you're getting a stipend from the government for each kid you have. (rant: because, you know, I choose not to have kids because of the responsibility and financial burden, but for some reason the gov't mandates that I must pay for everyone else's kids. Like having my property taxes go towards schools I'll never use isn't bad enough).

But seriously, I'd like to learn how conditions for the less well-off of the US population has changed.

Thanks again for the good conversation. Good to see people keep their cool in here.

J

[toesonthenose]

The plight of the poor seems in part related to the slow job creation as the US emerges from the recent recession. My recollection is that during the past three years something like 1.1 million people (many children) fell below the poverty line, and another 2 million joined the ranks of the medically uninsured (around 45 million overall). The child tax credit seems reasonable to me as we need to encourage population growth to support the masses of future retirees.

I understand that you have more trouble with the lack of spending reduction and approve of the tax cuts. But when the President has no intent to cut spending, has never used his veto power, and the branch of government contitutionally responsible for checks and balances of Presidential power is completly allied with Bush, well don't tax cuts seem a bit fiscally irresponsible in the face of mounting deficits?

I am a physician and work in part at a medical school. Much of post graduate medical education comes through Title 7 funding through the federal government. With the budgetary constraints the country faces this funding has been reduced by 10-20% each year, medical school tuitions go up and thus student debt load increases. The average american medical school graduate will have around $140,000 of debt. This affects their choice of specialities, more will steer toward higher paying specialities and and they will practice in more economically stable areas. Now you could look at this as a good example of market forces, but in reality the lack of primary care doctors in poor neighborhoods leads to larger public health problems and expense. I must admit there are many loan repayment programs to go to the areas of need, but I can tell you from my experience that they are not very competitive.

[deebat]

J: Thanks to you, too, for the good, cool conversation. It's clear that we all don't see entirely eye to eye here, but it's refreshing to be able to have such a discussion and not worry about getting flamed or being called "unpatriotic" (I'm so sick of that)! Perhaps there's a direct correlation between our ability to conduct a civil discussion and our mutual admiration of NZ, eh? :yes

As for the "poorest and weakest" people in America and whether they are indeed poorer and weaker than they were four years ago, some facts:

- There simply are more people living under the poverty line now. There's been an increase in poverty each year of the Bush administration. One out of every eight of us, in the so-called "richest" country in the world, is living in poverty.

- The median household income has remained flat during the Bush administration.

- A gazillion people (sorry, I don't have numbers on this one) are without health insurance. I believe we now have a higher percentage of uninsured people in this country than ever before. I guess people are forced to choose between food and health insurance nowadays.

- While Bush suggested during the campaign that we need better education to strengthen our populace, he chose to inadequately fund the No Child Left Behind Act by something like $28B. Those Americans who cannot afford to send their children to private schools are facing larger class sizes, few (if any) extracurricular and special-education opportunities and even inadequate school-lunch programs. (Here in Portland, Oregon, teachers had to work without pay for 10 days simply so kids could legally complete the minimum requirement for a full school year!)

- Programs for lower-income people like WIC and Head Start are seeing drastic cuts. I think I read somewhere that half a million people will be dropped from WIC and something like 50,000 kids will no longer have Head Start. I've been a Big Brother to a kid in a very poor family; they absolutely relied on both programs to keep their kids pointed in the right direction.

- Lower-income housing assistance is also going down the drain. Curbs have been taken off much of the costs of such housing, despite the fact that incomes are not growing for the poor. Many people in low-income housing are now expected to pay $200-300 more per month for rent!

- Factor in that the Wal-Marts and McDonald'ses of this country pay rock-bottom wages and often use strong-arm tactics to prevent workers from organizing to improve their lot, and it's a sad situation for the poorest and weakest in this country.

If the fed is going to tax me $1000 each month, I'd rather it be spent on stuff like WIC and education than the dang war in Iraq and bunker-busting nukes. I can't help but think the money is going to help us all much better in the long run that way.

Enough from the soapbox from me!

Thanks for reading,
Dan

[drumminj]

The plight of the poor seems in part related to the slow job creation as the US emerges from the recent recession.

I don't have hard numbers, but weren't most of the jobs lost middle-class jobs, rather than minimum-wage jobs? I'm sure there's a correlation (more unemployed people = less people spending money = fewer service jobs), but my understanding of the lost jobs is that it's not the people at or below the poverty line.

The child tax credit seems reasonable to me as we need to encourage population growth to support the masses of future retirees.

Okay, this line of reasoning...scares me, I guess is the best way to put it. We should PAY people to have children so that we can use those children to fund our pyramid scheme we have going? Do you think we NEED to encourage population growth? We've been growing just fine without the credits. In fact, we're growing too much, if you look at the resources we consume. I highly doubt any of the proponents of the tax credit will argue it's necessary to promote population growth. If that's the case, then all we're doing is promoting population growth among the poor and lesser-educated (yes, there is a positive correlation between socio-economic status and level of education). Surely not a winning combination for cultivating tax dollars.

and the branch of government contitutionally responsible for checks and balances of Presidential power is completly allied with Bush

Just because they have the same party affilitation doesn't mean the judicial can change laws. All they do is interpret them and make sure they are applied fairly. Sure, there's some room for liberal vs. conservative (not political, but the dictionary meaning) interpretation. But blame that on Congress for passing an ambiguous law. Regardless, I don't see what this has to do with poverty, or tax cuts.


well don't tax cuts seem a bit fiscally irresponsible in the face of mounting deficits?

Sure. But to me, it's a step in the right direction. Better than increasing taxes AND increasing spending. Both need to go down, as far as I'm concerned.

each year, medical school tuitions go up and thus student debt load increases.

And each year the average salary of physicians goes up as well, I'd imagine. Actually, hang on a second. So the federal gov't budget (which IS approved by congress, no? Don't forget to blame them for approving this budget) actually cuts spending in some areas (=reducing spending) and it's a bad thing? Isn't that more fiscally responsible? Granted, it may be cutting funding in an area you disagree with - I'll give you that. But still, if the budget is to be balanced (not claiming Bush did this, but if this is one's goal), either taxes must increase, or spending decrease, or both. This is one of those, no?

- There simply are more people living under the poverty line now. There's been an increase in poverty each year of the Bush administration. One out of every eight of us, in the so-called "richest" country in the world, is living in poverty.


To be fair, poverty here in the "richest" country in the world is quite different than poverty in most other places in the world. Those under the poverty line here in the states often have cable, cell phones, etc.

- While Bush suggested during the campaign that we need better education to strengthen our populace, he chose to inadequately fund the No Child Left Behind Act by something like $28B. Those Americans who cannot afford to send their children to private schools are facing larger class sizes, few (if any) extracurricular and special-education opportunities and even inadequate school-lunch programs. (Here in Portland, Oregon, teachers had to work without pay for 10 days simply so kids could legally complete the minimum requirement for a full school year!)


Definitely an issue. So, rather than rely on federal funding, why not get your state reps, or county reps, to increase taxes to fund your schools? Or cut other programs? Maybe rather than going to sporting events (and paying $100/ticket), people could send a check to a teacher (rather than give the money to an athlete that makes $50mil/year). We don't HAVE to rely on the federal government for these things. In fact, I don't belive it's the federal government's business.

- Factor in that the Wal-Marts and McDonald'ses of this country pay rock-bottom wages and often use strong-arm tactics to prevent workers from organizing to improve their lot, and it's a sad situation for the poorest and weakest in this country.


No one HAS to work at Walmart. They COULD unionize there. I agree, Walmart does not treat their employees the best. However, this would be a moot point if people would realize their actions have consequences, and that they don't HAVE to shop at Walmart. If you do, and you have issues with how they treat their employees, you are the cause of the problem. In order to offer the low prices that you, as a consumer, demand, and shop there for, they have to have low labor costs, as well as low product cost. If people didn't shop there, it wouldn't be such a big deal. But most americans cannot think outside the box and beyond their wallet.

Some very valid points/complaints. It's kind of fun discussing this on a message board rather than in person, since you don't have to worry about people cutting each other off or getting upset and yelling at you. Well, at least not yet :)

J

[kamus]

Hey J. Yep we disagree all right!

I don't disagree with your example at face value however I do take issue with some of the apparent underlying assumptions in your thesis.

It seems that you view a progressive tax as inherently unfair. Well you do have a lot of company, especially among libertartians, a group that you unwittingly (or wittingly perhaps) seemed to have aligned yourself with. Of course, you're also in the company of the rich, and the gullible poor who view the simplicity of a flat tax as a good thing. I don't have the time or the inclination to debate socialism vs libertarianism with you but those are two of the primary principles involved in a debate of this nature. Suffice it say that progressive taxes were designed to help those who can least afford to help themselves. If you don't believe that a society has an obligation, noblesse oblige if you will, to help the bottom strata of society then we differ on a fundamental philosophical point.

Even if you don't disagree with the need to help the disadvantaged in society, the ideas behind a flat tax are fundamentally flawed from another angle. It is largely based on an economic theory known as supply side (or voodoo or trickle down) economics. Of course, you're familiar with the term from the Reagan years but perhaps what you fail to realize is just what a horrendously flawed theory it is. By purely academic principles, Supply Side economics can empirically be proven to be utterly bogus. What's more, Reagan's application of this theory is widely regarded (other than the right wing flying monkeys that want to see his face on Mt. Rushmore) as disastrous and as a consequence you will not find an economist today who isn't wearing a tinfoil hat who will stand behind it.

As a matter of fact at least one economist takes the view that trickle down economics hurts the rich. The idea being that money that goes to the rich is generally untilized more stagnantly than money available to the poorer sector resulting in a inefficient stimulus to the economy- that combined with the staggering deficits that invariably follow the application of trickle down tax cuts. The net result is a badly performing economy that hurts everyone including the rich.

To take just a simple example of this: if Joe Average who makes 25,000 a year and gets a tax rebate of (say)$100, he is highly likely to spend that $100 as people in that economic bracket usually have a list of things they wish to buy and can't yet afford. Contrast that with Bob Millionaire who gets a tax cut of $10,000. He already has everything he needs- he's not necessarily going to rush out and spend it-at best he may invest it and provide some slower acting, less effective stimulus to the economy but since he doesn't need a snowmobile or whatever, then snowmobile sales remain flat, no new workers are hired etc.

To sum up, one can hardly argue with the math in your example, but the economic truth of the matter involves complex interrelationships and the consequences that affect actual human beings and it's just not that simple. I argue that a progressive tax that goes light on the poor and harder on the rich is not just the kind of tax structure a compassionate society should pride itself on, but is also sound economic policy. You might want to consult this article on
The problems with Bush's tax cuts (http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/gale/20030509.htm) from those smart folks at the Brookings Institution for a much better analysis that I could hope to give.

Of course, as always we do agree on a couple of points- taxes should be fair (whatever that means), Bush's tax cuts combined with his profligate spending represent some sort of fiscal insanity. And Government should take as little of our money as necessary. I resent the Government taking my money, giving it to Halliburton, using it to kill foreigners, giving it (in terms of land giveaways, for instance) to mining and timber companies etc to accelerate the rape of of the planet. I would like to see them invest it education, the arts, universal health care, renewable energy, treatment instead of jail for drug offenders, job training for the poor and massive subsidies to musicians (just kidding on that last one). Those are the kind of taxes I wouldn't mind paying.

I hope I haven't misrepresented your views or made false assumptions of my own, if so, I welcome your corrections.

- your pal,
Dave

[drumminj]

Wow, Dave. Very well articulated post. I had to laugh, though, as you painted me with completely the wrong brush. I don't think there's any thing I said to lead you to believe that I'm for a flat tax, or that I believe trickle-down economics to be sound (or even that I have any stance on the issue). However, you bring up a couple good points that I'd like to discuss, as I'm waiting for a compile(= web browsing time) anyway.

I resent the Government taking my money, giving it to Halliburton, using it to kill foreigners, giving it (in terms of land giveaways, for instance) to mining and timber companies etc to accelerate the rape of of the planet. I would like to see them invest it education, the arts, universal health care, renewable energy, treatment instead of jail for drug offenders, job training for the poor and massive subsidies to musicians (just kidding on that last one). Those are the kind of taxes I wouldn't mind paying.

I see one fundamental flaw with your thinking - why should taxes go to these things? What if, instead of being taxed and having the government and the other 289,999,999 people in this country deciding where that money goes, you just donate it directly?


Suffice it say that progressive taxes were designed to help those who can least afford to help themselves. If you don't believe that a society has an obligation, noblesse oblige if you will, to help the bottom strata of society then we differ on a fundamental philosophical point.


We do disagree on a fundamental philosophical point, but not the one you're thinking of. While I may agree that it is in society's best interest (not sure if I feel it's an obligation), I do not believe it should be legislated. I do not believe this should be done by the government. There was a time when donations to help the poor and less fortunate were done personally - through the church, etc. I think that's the right way to do it. Just because you feel obligated doesn't mean that I should be. To me, it's legislating morality. Now, there's definitely an argument made that it's necessary for a civil society, and thus should be in the realm of the government - otherwise there'd be more vagabonds, crime, etc. I'm not so sure how strong an argument that is. However, I'd be willing to concede on that point.

I don't know much about economics. Not going to debate that, and wasn't trying to. I wasn't saying that progressive tax is bad or good. (I guess I'm not a big fan of a progressive tax. I do think it's inherently unfair, even if it is economically sound.) I most definitely wasn't trying to say that trickle-down economics works or doesn't. My point was simply that if we tax progressively, it only makes sense that tax breaks would be progressive as well, no? If you're giving tax money back to the people, it should probably go to the people who payed the tax in the first place.


I hope I haven't misrepresented your views or made false assumptions of my own, if so, I welcome your corrections.

No harm done. The more I discuss this stuff, the more I want to get out of this country. Not because of your opinions, but simply becuase I know 9/10ths of the country couldn't have an intelligent discussion on any of these issues.

J

[deebat]

The child tax credit seems reasonable to me as we need to encourage population growth to support the masses of future retirees.

Okay, this line of reasoning...scares me, I guess is the best way to put it. We should PAY people to have children ....

I agree with J here, without a doubt. When we encourage people to have children for solely economic reasons, we haven't made much progress from the days before child-labor laws existed.

To be fair, poverty here in the "richest" country in the world is quite different than poverty in most other places in the world. Those under the poverty line here in the states often have cable, cell phones, etc.

The poverty line is defined as, "A minimum income level below which a person is officially considered to lack adequate subsistence." Sure, a family of four making $18k a year would be doing gangbusters in, say, Burundi -- but in the US, that's the poverty line. There undoubtedly are abuses in the system, but I think it's a broad brush stroke that suggests that the poor in America are living in comparative luxury.

And my main point is, we're getting more people falling below that level.

Definitely an issue. So, rather than rely on federal funding, why not get your state reps, or county reps, to increase taxes to fund your schools? Or cut other programs?

We did exactly that in Multnomah County (downtown Portland). And despite a well-funded effort by conservatives to repeal the tax, we upheld it in the referendum last week.

Maybe rather than going to sporting events (and paying $100/ticket), people could send a check to a teacher (rather than give the money to an athlete that makes $50mil/year). We don't HAVE to rely on the federal government for these things. In fact, I don't belive it's the federal government's business.

OK, that's fine, and I would love to keep the govt out of it as much as possible, too. But the fact is, people appear to be too concerned about their own goodies (money, "security," etc.) here to want to send a check to a teacher. You simply cannot rely on individuals to be responsible enough to give of themselves in this country anymore. Not when they're walled up away from each other, locked behind doors and watching a glowing box all the time.

No one HAS to work at Walmart. They COULD unionize there. I agree, Walmart does not treat their employees the best. However, this would be a moot point if people would realize their actions have consequences, and that they don't HAVE to shop at Walmart.

True, no one is legally bound to work at Wal-Mart. But when your job at the local store is lost because Wal-Mart moved into town and you've got a child to support, you may very well need to work at Wal-Mart because there's no income potential anywhere else. You can't just pick up and move someplace new, either; Hoovervilles don't exist anymore.

But I think I'm starting to get a little contentious here. I'd rather not, so let me end on another note of agreement with you, J:

The thing I liked most about what you wrote was, "...if people would realize their actions have consequences." Amen to that, brother, and not just in the context of shopping at Wal-Mart. Perhaps I'm just too much of a utopian idealist, but I love to think about how much good could be done if people just STOPPED and GOT OUT OF THEIR HEADS for a moment to see what they're doing to each other. From Bush on down, it seems to me that this rampant rejection of the poor is not going to bode well for America's collective karma.

Thanks again, J. You've stirred up some emotions in me, both negative and positive, and that's good. Honest, civil and challenging discourse is something this country can really use.

-Dan

[Annierobrigado]

hey guys,

great posts, i am learning more about the us. seems to me we are in similar straits, even if our currencies are different. our problems are also government spending, although we stopped sending people to iraq (except that there are a few stubborn ones who really insist on going to iraq because of the job opportunities there, despite our govt's ban). GMA started austerity measures here, and initiated increase in "sin taxes" - taxing liquor, cigarettes, and girls (hehehe this last one's just a joke). govt agencies are supposed to cut down on their spending, especially the use of official agency vehicles. that's because many "for official use only" vehicles are seen everyday at the mall or at nightclubs before, during and after office hours, hahaha. what a joke we've become. there are a lot more i could share, but in effect, our govt is trying to correct a leak in the dike. and still we're nowhere being able to deliver the basic services of health, education, peace and order, employment. Is that true also in the states, with your tax cuts? even our social security is going bankrupt! well, you've seen how many presidents made the national treasury their milking cow. plus the fact that whatever happens to the US dollar and the US in general, we are also affected. If you have a recession, we have a recession too. if your economy is bleak, ours become bleaker. if you go to war, well, even if we don't go with you, our trade and industry with you is put on hold, so it isn't business as usual.

Is the Iraq war really necessary? Yeesh, that's another thread, i don't expect you to answer that, it just so happens that many people don't agree with it, and if Bush finds out about the disagreers (sic), they'll be part of the persona-non-grata with Bush and the US powers that be.

It's complicated, no?

Maybe we who are non-US citizens should let the US citizens be. We may be naive, but we are just finding out that you could be vulnerable too. We've held you in high esteem and even set you on an impossibly high pedestal for a long long time, that it's only now we come to realize that you may fall anytime, and we could get dragged along, or you fall flat on us and we'd be squished like those bugs that crawl all over NZ, what that name again?

But the colonial mentality is sooo hard to erase, not in this age of MTV and the www. And why not? if 1 USD buys a kilo of rice, some instant noodles, a glassful of cooking oil, a sachet of salt, and 1/4 kilo of tomatoes which could feed a family of five for one day, we can't let go of the dream to go to the land of milk and honey where a nurse can drive a benz in three months' time, but she can't do that here in the phils even if she works 3 lifetimes.

I'm going around in circles, which i do usually when i participate in serious discussions. what i just like to point out is if the american public will go serious and vote for the best officials for the us, just go on your tenets of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the rest of the world will probably be happy too. Maybe! But your choices are what you will end up with, and the world takes it from there. You may not agree, but it's true! The world waits with abated breath everytime some fundamental change happens to the US. Especially the developing countries!

okay, i'm out of breath now. you know, if i were with j and dave and dan in a round table discussion, i don't think i'll have the courage to join them in their exchanges. :angel :oops: that's why thanks for letting us post in this forum, we don't just get to learn about NZ, we get to learn about the other countries as well, and it's better to open up here, online, than to join shouting matches and destroy what friendships have already formed.

keep it cool, and stay in touch! I love you guys :clap

Raeven, thanks for your kind words! I know a lot of Americans and I appreciate all of them, including those in this forum.. those who I don't appreciate, I don't wanna know. tee hee hee!

I promise to give you a mug each of your fave brew when i arrive in NZ.

:cheers :laugh :P :cool
annie

[drumminj]

Dan, no reason to worry about getting too contentious. So long as you don't call me names, I think the discussion here is very beneficial. Definitely the case for me. You make some very good points.

The poverty line is defined as, "A minimum income level below which a person is officially considered to lack adequate subsistence." Sure, a family of four making $18k a year would be doing gangbusters in, say, Burundi -- but in the US, that's the poverty line. There undoubtedly are abuses in the system, but I think it's a broad brush stroke that suggests that the poor in America are living in comparative luxury.

I see what you are saying. I'm not sure how the census bureau comes up with the stats for who is below the poverty line - whether it's strictly a formula of household income / people in household. My point was, outside of the official statistic determined (which probably is not what the politicians are quoting, but that's my cynical side showing), many people choose to put themselves in a position where they "lack adequate subsistence" because they choose to spend the income they have on luxury/material items: cell phones, cable, an obnoxious exhaust on the car, spinning rims, etc. They may not fall in the official statistic (or maybe they do), but they are "living in poverty" by most people's standards.

As far as relative poverty. I'm not trying to say that living in poverty in the US is club med, or that there is no plight here. But those in poverty here in the states aren't sitting out in the sun on dried, cracked earth and covered in flies. "Poverty" as we define it here in the US sucks, but I'd say doesn't suck quite as bad as it does in third-world countries. Would you?

You simply cannot rely on individuals to be responsible enough to give of themselves in this country anymore.

So are you, or anyone in government, responsible enough to decide what everyone should give? What if I AM responsible enough to make my decisions, but now someone with different ideals decides I'm not, and tries to make my decisions for me? I agree with your point - people are too caught up in themselves and too narrow-minded (not talking about anyone here, I don't think) to make decisions in the interest of the "greater good". But I think it's dangerous for an elected official to define the "greater good". I'm even more afraid of members of the general populace trying to define that. I'm not sure who that leaves, perhaps philosophers - John Stuart Mill(on Liberty) or Plato(the Republic).

True, no one is legally bound to work at Wal-Mart. But when your job at the local store is lost because Wal-Mart moved into town and you've got a child to support, you may very well need to work at Wal-Mart because there's no income potential anywhere else. You can't just pick up and move someplace new, either; Hoovervilles don't exist anymore.

But I think I'm starting to get a little contentious here. I'd rather not

No, I think you raise a very good point. However, I think this is where our different philosophies diverge. At some point, the people need to be responsible for their own actions. The people lost their job at the local store because they, and their neighbors, shopped at Walmart rather than the local business. They destroyed their own economy, and put themselves in a position to only have one employer to work for, who does not have an exemplary track record for how they treat employees. However, they're free to pay what they want, so long as it's above the minimum wage, and they pay overtime when applicable. Yes, it sucks when people suffer, but ultimately people need to learn their consequences have actions. In my opinion, it is not up to the government to protect people from all of these consequences.

Thanks again, J. You've stirred up some emotions in me, both negative and positive, and that's good. Honest, civil and challenging discourse is something this country can really use.

And thank you. This thread may ultimately be off-topic, but while the moderators allow it to continue, I will continue to enjoy the discourse.

J
:cheers

[deebat]

Actually, the only reason I'm having this conversation is to attract annie's attention so she'll remember us someday in NZ and will buy us a pint. :cheers

J, it occurs to me that we're having this conversation in the ENZ forum; how about we make our way back to a topic that actually relates to NZ? :booby ... I'm curious: is there anything in particular about the way NZ is run, both from a societal and governmental aspect, that appeals to your libertarian beliefs/values? I still have a lot of learning to do about NZ's government myself, but I was curious about whether you've seen anything in NZ that contrasts favorably with the US from a libertarian's perspective.

Thanks!

-Dan

[sweetpea]

I just ran across this forum, and will add my two cents as someone from the US who is moving to NZ.

I decided to take the plunge before the election. The US social/political climate as a whole scares me, particularly the PATRIOT Act.

That said, I would be happy to live in my little San Francisco/Oakland/Berkeley bubble of tolerance and fabulous weather indefinitely, except that I cannot afford to buy a house here and rent is exhorbitant. It's truly scary when a family making US$80K a year is considered low-income.

More importantly, I'm contemplating a mid-career change and would like to become a veterinarian, but to do that in California involves 7 more years of full-time study (including 3 years of pre-requisites). I might have been able to afford the tuition, but not the living expenses -- and in any case, I don't want to be aged when I graduate. Massey University has an accredited 5-year DVM-equivalent program, accepts US financial aid, and offers a much lower cost of living.

I love eastern Canada -- in the summertime -- but I grew up in Chicago and lived in Minnesota for 4 years, and have had my fill of snow. Vancouver is hip, beautiful and temperate, but rain just depresses me. I do expect you will see a fair number of people from the US West Coast migrate up to BC if the political situation gets much worse.

New Zealand seems perfect for me needs. And if that turns out not to be true, I'll be too busy studying to notice :P

[cloudboy99]

Hi Sweetpea and welcome. I can totally understand your pain as its one of the reasons I'm up here in Portland. I was born and raised in San Jose (30 minutes from San Fran but still darn expensive) and the only reason my parents are still there is they purchased their house in 1974. I loved the culture of the area, but wow was it too expensive to even consider staying. Nothing like paying US$2500 for a one bedroom flat in a bad neighborhood to make you want to look elsewhere. This forum is an invaluable resource that I'm sure you (like me) will greatly benefit from. And don't forget, your move to NZ will be somewhat easier as Air NZ flys non-stop out of SFO and SF/Oakland are major shipping points.

[kamus]

Wow, Dave. Very well articulated post.

I had to laugh, though, as you painted me with completely the wrong brush. I don't think there's any thing I said to lead you to believe that I'm for a flat tax, or that I believe trickle-down economics to be sound (or even that I have any stance on the issue).

Gosh, "well articulated post" almost sounds like an insult. :laugh

I hope you'll forgive me though for I had to laugh at your laughter, because when you defend of the "fairness" of Bush's tax cuts you are indeed toeing the line of those who believe in flat/regressive taxation. You have already mentioned your uneasiness with progressive taxation and the only reasonable alternatives found outside of hypothectical economics doctoral dissertations are regressive and flat taxation, both of which count on Supply Side Economics as their theoretical underpinnings-( well there's Marxist style communism too, I suppose.)

I'm curious J, when it comes to what you expect from your government, is it just a dollar and cents issue for you-as in whomever gives you the biggest rebate is OK with you (provided they don't spend too much)? I'd like to think that our governments should do more than just keep the peace, provide national defence and build roads hence my statement:

I resent the Government taking my money, giving it to Hallibirton etc... I would like to see them invest it education, the arts, universal health care, renewable energy, treatment instead of jail for drug offenders, job training for the poor and massive subsidies to musicians (just kidding on that last one). Those are the kind of taxes I wouldn't mind paying.

I see one fundamental flaw with your thinking - why should taxes go to these things? What if, instead of being taxed and having the government and the other 289,999,999 people in this country deciding where that money goes, you just donate it directly?

I can see why you might find my statement logically inconsistent and while I agree with you that we shouldn't be overly taxed, the fact is that I do believe in the positive value of taxation- it's the price to pay to live in a modern civilised society and contrary to what libertarians believe- I don't think these things I mentioned are luxuries or dispensable in any way. They are the very things an enlightened society must invest in for the survival and the flowering of our species. And leaving it to individual donations would be reckless folly as practice has shown. The Arts funding in this country has been crippled by the government abdicating its role in promoting the arts and turning it over to the private sector. We are most certainly not better off as a result of that decision, although it may have made some people happy to get a couple of cents back in their tax rebate check.

No, the people can still decide where the money goes by virtue of the democratic process- that's one of the primary functions governments perform- spending the people's money for the greater good. And a good number of European governments (and to some degree, NZ) have made investments in the very things I've mentioned, and by many standards they surpass the USA in quality of life assessments. And, although no government/ country is free from problems, their populaces generally continue to support these expenses because they are proud of the societies they are creating and recognise the inherent value to themselves and their children.

When compared to other industrialised nations, the USA continues to run near the bottom when it comes to healthcare, education, poverty, pollution, the arts, violence, gun control, separation of church and state, freedom of the press and a number of other very important issues. It's not a country to be all that proud of I'm afraid, unless you count low taxes, easy access to assault rifles, government control by big business special interests, SUV sales, cheap petrol, out of control medical costs, discrimination against gays and ethnic Americans and a populace that thinks that Bush is some sort of Moral Saviour as big plusses.


We do disagree on a fundamental philosophical point, but not the one you're thinking of. While I may agree that it is in society's best interest (not sure if I feel it's an obligation), I do not believe it should be legislated. To me, it's legislating morality. Now, there's definitely an argument made that it's necessary for a civil society, and thus should be in the realm of the government - otherwise there'd be more vagabonds, crime, etc. I'm not so sure how strong an argument that is. However, I'd be willing to concede on that point.


I see it as a practical as well as a moral issue. A society, free of the drag and friction of poverty/welfare and crime with a well educated populace is simply a better society economically, socially and in terms of quality of life issues than one that isn't. Afghanistan or Sweden- where would you rather live? So think of it as "legislating practicality" and it's easier to swallow. On this point, there is a fascinating book called "The Moral Animal" by Robert Wright which concerns the emerging field of evolutionary psychology. One of the ideas in the book is that altruism is not really altruistic at all. He makes a convincing case for the notion that societies and cultures who looked after the common good historically have fared much better and survived longer and in better shape than those who didn't. So really, altruism is really quite a selfish concept in a way.


I don't know much about economics. ... My point was simply that if we tax progressively, it only makes sense that tax breaks would be progressive as well, no? If you're giving tax money back to the people, it should probably go to the people who payed the tax in the first place.

That would be fine if the tax breaks were progressive. The Bush tax breaks were, in fact, regressive- see this article (http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=45634) for just one discussion on this topic.

Re: your comments on poverty. That hunger and poverty still exist in the US (and anywhere) is just appalling. I cringe to live in a land where people routinely pay $10,000 for a golf membership, $5 for a latte and $50,000 for a Hummer etc. and yet do little or nothing to help wipe out poverty- a condition that is eminently preventable. I also don't think the poor people who live in the US in documentable conditions of squalor, ignorance, hopelessness and misery are high fiveing each other at how much better they have it over someone who combs through a garbage dump in Calcutta for food. All poverty must be eliminated and discussions centering around which poor people are "better off" are non-productive at best and counter productive at worst. And let's remind ourselves, if we didn't have people who cared about the plight of the poor such as was the case with the French Revolution, we wouldn't have modern democracies to begin with and a good deal more of us peasants would be grinding our way through life in pitiable conditions replete with despair.


Sorry for another long winded rant, but that's just me: a long winded ranter :?

It's always gratifying to have a genuine discussion of the issues here on this forum of enlightened individuals where we actually listen to each other. I agree with J, that if the level of discourse on the issues in the US was more like the discussions we have here then I wouldn't be in such a hurry to leave.

BTW, I feel that these discussions are absolutely germane to the overriding subject of immigration to NZ. What better criteria for choosing a country than by comparing the relative policies, attitudes and social climates of the various countries involved?

Thanks for listening.

-Dave

[deebat]

BTW, I feel that these discussions are absolutely germaine to the overriding subject of immigration to NZ. What better criteria for choosing a country than by comparing the relative policies, attitudes and social climates of the various countries involved?

Hi Dave -- Of course, you're right! I guess I was thinking merely about incorporating some NZ-specific dialogue into this great discussion we're having; a lot of it has focused merely on details in the US.

It's fun to consider that discussions like these are another part in the eternal movement of peoples across this planet. Our opinions and learned lessons will come with us to NZ, where they undoubtedly will evolve further by our experience there and then be passed on to our descendants. I wonder in which ways the NZ of, say, the year 2100 will be impacted by the influence of immigrants from the early 21st century...

Thanks for your thoughts!
-Dan

P.S. Love the Capitol Steps! Saw them (you) a couple years ago in NYC. My fiancee, however, can't watch you anymore because the last time she saw a show was in Portland on Election Day 2000 -- hence, some bad flashbacks... :roll:

[kamus]

I
P.S. Love the Capitol Steps! Saw them (you) a couple years ago in NYC. My fiancee, however, can't watch you anymore because the last time she saw a show was in Portland on Election Day 2000 -- hence, some bad flashbacks... :roll:

I was on that show- the memories are equally painful for me too! :wah I think that this election out-pains the last one, if that's possible!

Thanks, Dan

[drumminj]

Dave, I think I've avoided a full-frontal assult from you up to this point. Now I remember why I was trying to do so. I've read your post a few times, and done some research, so hopefully I can do a fair job of responding.

I did not mean "well articluated" in any sarcastic way that could be interpreted as an insult. What I meant was that, even though I disagree with some of your points, and I feel you had incorrectly classified/labeled me, your points were very-well made and very well-spoken. That's all. It's a compliment.



I hope you'll forgive me though for I had to laugh at your laughter, because when you defend of the "fairness" of Bush's tax cuts you are indeed toeing the line of those who believe in flat/regressive taxation. You have already mentioned your uneasiness with progressive taxation and the only reasonable alternatives found outside of hypothectical economics doctoral dissertations are regressive and flat taxation, both of which count on Supply Side Economics as their theoretical underpinnings-( well there's Marxist style communism too, I suppose.)

Let's be fair, here. Just because I have one opinion, that is shared with one group of people, doesn't mean I agree with/believe everything else they do. Just because you're pro-life doesn't mean you're a neo-con, etc etc. I am not "toe-ing" any line. My opinion is that, if you don't distribute tax cuts in the same way to take the taxes, then you're just doing even more progressive taxation. Regardless, just because I am uneasy with policy 'A', doesn't automatically mean I'm a die-hard believer in either policy 'B' or 'C'. All it means is that I'm uneasy with 'A'.


I'm curious J, when it comes to what you expect from your government, is it just a dollar and cents issue for you-as in whomever gives you the biggest rebate is OK with you (provided they don't spend too much)?

This is starting to feel a lot like a personal insult. You're accusing me of only caring about money? (maybe not accusing, but definitely insinuating). For me, simply, government should be as small as possible. Government is incredibly inefficient, and incredibly corrupt. More dollars in my pocket to do with as I please is better. Sure, I belive government should serve certain general functions. But I believe most of those should be handled at the state level, not the federal.

Besides, I'd much rather the government not have to give me a rebate at all - that would mean they're not taking my money in the first place :mrgreen:


I'd like to think that our governments should do more than just keep the peace, provide national defence and build roads hence my statement:

I resent the Government taking my money, giving it to Hallibirton etc... I would like to see them invest it education, the arts, universal health care, renewable energy, treatment instead of jail for drug offenders, job training for the poor and massive subsidies to musicians (just kidding on that last one). Those are the kind of taxes I wouldn't mind paying.

And we can disagree here. I don't know that we want to get into what types of things we think the government should handle. I do want to clarify/apologize for something here, though. I haven't been making a distinction between federal and state/local government. In most cases, I've been speaking solely about the federal government. And while I don't believe they shouldn't be responsible for certain things, that does not mean I don't think local government can't/shouldn't be involved.


I can see why you might find my statement logically inconsistent and while I agree with you that we shouldn't be overly taxed, the fact is that I do believe in the positive value of taxation- it's the price to pay to live in a modern civilised society

I agree that certain taxation has positive value as well. We just draw the line in different places.


and contrary to what libertarians believe- I don't think these things I mentioned are luxuries or dispensable in any way.

I think you are incorrectly portraying libertarians. It's not that libertarian philosophy believes such things are luxuries or dispensable (they may think so, I'm not sure, I've never seen an opinion mentioned), but simply that they don't think the government should have its hand in such things. That does not imply a value judgement about such things. Just simply that it's not the government's business.


They are the very things an enlightened society must invest in for the survival and the flowering of our species. And leaving it to individual donations would be reckless folly as practice has shown. The Arts funding in this country has been crippled by the government abdicating its role in promoting the arts and turning it over to the private sector.

I would have to disagree that the arts are necessary for the survival of our species. Is that what you are saying? It seems to me that you are of the opinion that certain things inherently, and objectively, make for a better society and increase the quality of life. I appreciate art - I'm a photographer in my spare time. I enjoy going to museums, plays and other performances. Sure, it can enhance the quality of life in a society. But so can engineering. But the government doesn't fund engineering like it does the arts. I am not trying to belittle what you do, but why should that be funded, but not other things that enhance the quality of life for all citizens in a society?


We are most certainly not better off as a result of that decision, although it may have made some people happy to get a couple of cents back in their tax rebate check.

I would be curious to hear in what way we are not better off, and how it harms our society.


No, the people can still decide where the money goes by virtue of the democratic process- that's one of the primary functions governments perform- spending the people's money for the greater good.

Unfortunately, we're not a democracy. The way tax dollars is spent is not democratic. I don't get to vote on the budget, and neither do you. I don't get to vote on what the tax rate is. I don't get to vote on whether we fund the arts, or research into bovine gas emissions, or $1000 haircuts for the man in office. I wish I did. But democracy in a country this size is just incredibly inefficeint - which is why more decisions should be made at the local level.


And a good number of European governments (and to some degree, NZ) have made investments in the very things I've mentioned, and by many standards they surpass the USA in quality of life assessments.


Just because there's a correlation between A and B doesn't mean A implies B. Am I happy there's more art, and a higher quality of life? Yes. I'm not saying I'm not. I just think the same thing can be accomplished without the government being involved. Plus, who's to say that funding the arts is the best bang for the buck as far as quality of life is concerned. Or that it even increases the quality of life for a society. Not everyone appreciates art....


And, although no government/ country is free from problems, their populaces generally continue to support these expenses because they are proud of the societies they are creating and recognise the inherent value to themselves and their children.

You may be right, but I don't think any of us here are qualified to make such statements. If you can show research that was done to support this, cool, I'm glad they feel that way.


When compared to other industrialised nations, the USA continues to run near the bottom when it comes to healthcare, education, poverty, pollution, the arts, violence, gun control, separation of church and state, freedom of the press and a number of other very important issues. It's not a country to be all that proud of I'm afraid, unless you count low taxes, easy access to assault rifles, government control by big business special interests, SUV sales, cheap petrol, out of control medical costs, discrimination against gays and ethnic Americans and a populace that thinks that Bush is some sort of Moral Saviour as big plusses.

I imagine this paragrah is somewhat disjoint from the discussion on taxes, I think there are some flawed assumptions here. Taxation does not fix all these things. Gun control is not inherently a good thing. Seperation of church and state comes from a liberal interpretation of the bill of rights (though I do think it is a precept our country should follow), and is being subverted mainly due to the will of the people. Granted, the government SHOULD be protecting against that. Easy access to assult rifles is not necessarily a bad thing. That's not to say I'm proud of our country. To be quite honest, I'm ashamed of many of the people I must call "countrymen".


I see it as a practical as well as a moral issue. A society, free of the drag and friction of poverty/welfare and crime with a well educated populace is simply a better society economically, socially and in terms of quality of life issues than one that isn't.

Well, this very much depends on how you measure a "better society". Also, when making a statement such as that above, you're probably assuming all the good of our current society, but eliminating the bad. But the more socialistic we become, it's very possible that some of the good will disappear. There becomes less incentive to excel. Perhaps more discontentment with one's neighbors who are living on one's tax dollars, etc. I'm not saying that will necessarily happen, but rather saying that no true assesment can be made about the utopia you describe.


Afghanistan or Sweden- where would you rather live?

At least pick a fair comparison. Afghanistan is not a stable country at the moment, and not because of their socialist or taxation policies.


So think of it as "legislating practicality" and it's easier to swallow. On this point, there is a fascinating book called "The Moral Animal" by Robert Wright which concerns the emerging field of evolutionary psychology. One of the ideas in the book is that altruism is not really altruistic at all. He makes a convincing case for the notion that societies and cultures who looked after the common good historically have fared much better and survived longer and in better shape than those who didn't. So really, altruism is really quite a selfish concept in a way.

Interesting thought. May actually go pick up that book, as it sounds interesting. However, I doubt that people engaging in such "altrustic" behaviors are not consciously thinking about the long-term survival of their society. I could be wrong. Regardless, it's hard to believe that there is any truly altruistic act, as most people feel good about themselves for doing something that is judged as altruistic.


That would be fine if the tax breaks were progressive. The Bush tax breaks were, in fact, regressive- see this article (http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=45634) for just one discussion on this topic.


I can very easily post links to articles that have a different slant. Instead of this "he-said she-said", I'll look at the arguments that article makes.

The average tax cuts Americans received in the past three years were more than offset by cost increases elsewhere, especially for such priorities as housing, medical care and higher education.

Regardless of whether any tax cuts were passed or not, the same americans would still be paying higher housing, medical care, and higher education costs. The first two are not related at all to the tax cuts, or the distribution of the cuts. A total red-herring. As far as higher education, it could be the case that certain programs were reduced - loans, grants, etc. I didn't find any reference to these things in any articles I read, so I'm not sure. Regardless, this affected everyone, not just the poor, and not just the rich. They went up for everyone. So again, this is not a factor when evaluating the relative distributions of the tax cuts to the "rich" and "poor".


The fact of the matter is that most taxpayers receive well below the “average” tax cut. For example, the average tax cut in 2003 was $1,800, but the majority of taxpayers got less than $850. And 80% of taxpayers received less than $1,500 (figure 2). Why do these numbers seem so skewed? Simple: the top 1% of taxpayers did a whole lot better than the average taxpayer, receiving nearly $52,000 in tax breaks in 2003 (the distribution of the tax cuts in the prior years was equally skewed).

As mentioned in earlier posts, this is simply the wrong metric to use. Straight dollar amounts are misleading. Another common metric I saw used in articles was tax breaks relative to income. Misleading. The proper metric is tax breaks relative to tax paid. Do you disagree?

To top it off, regardless of how the tax cuts are distributed, taxpayers and their children will have to pay the price of our rapidly rising national debt.

Another red herring, as no factual statement can be made as to what segment of the population will end up paying off the debt. Perhaps Hilary, when elected in 2008, will increase the tax on income over $100k to 99.99%, and pay off all the debt.

For a better discussion of the tax breaks, check out this article:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2108201/


Re: your comments on poverty. That hunger and poverty still exist in the US (and anywhere) is just appalling. I cringe to live in a land where people routinely pay $10,000 for a golf membership, $5 for a latte and $50,000 for a Hummer etc. and yet do little or nothing to help wipe out poverty- a condition that is eminently preventable.

While I agree that it's bad form for people to spend ridiculous amounts of money on such things and never think about helping out those less fortunate, do you not think individuals in this country should be able to decide how to spend money they earn? The thing that scares me is that people want to tell the rich how they can spend their money (by taxing them progressively and making value judgements like you do above), but want to be able to prioritize finances in their own lives. How is that not hypocritical?


I also don't think the poor people who live in the US in documentable conditions of squalor, ignorance, hopelessness and misery are high fiveing each other at how much better they have it over someone who combs through a garbage dump in Calcutta for food.

That's not what I was saying. I wasn't saying they're happy about being in poverty. Just that the defintion of poverty here in the states is quite different from other places in the world. Not saying it's good or bad, just that it is.


All poverty must be eliminated and discussions centering around which poor people are "better off" are non-productive at best and counter productive a