Well, that sounds good to me, Knut!

The problem with socialism (and most isms come to think of it) is that the vast majority of the people have to agree with the philosophy in order for it to work. If people disagree with onerous levels of taxation there is little they can do about it in a socialist system other than leave. Those people who hate that system have no recourse other than to take their talents and abilities elsewhere in order to maximize the profit gained from their abilities.

Add to that the belief that the onereous levels of taxation aren't instituted in order to generate money but in order to make people more equal. I presented a left wing friend with a pension system based on our current model in Canada that would allow individual accounts to be set up for our retirement. Essentially the money that goes into our national plan would go into individual bonds and savings plans that individuals would have no access to or control of until the day they retired. The amount of money you pay in from the time you turn eighteen would be yours and would be earning money for you your entire working life. A standard private pension plan but one put in place by the government. Her reason for disagreeing with that plan? Too much possibility that people would have money left over when they died to will to their children and it wouldn't be good for society if we were all better off. That is not a typical socialist point of view, but telling in that it showed a philosophy that people should do well but not too well.

Capitalism requires people to buy in as well, however I feel the difference is that if you disagree you aren't required to pay extra taxes as a penalty. And if you disagree in a socialist country it is most likely because you are the ones paying the extra taxes which is a penalty (not precisely for being capitalist but it works out the same).

In smaller countries that are less geographically and ethnically diverse than Canada and the United States it becomes possible to adopt socialism because enough of the population buys in to it and it doesn't have to, of necessity, punish those that disagree. For example in Alberta we are considered extremely right wing (while actually being slightly left wing, definitions are all out of whack in Canada), but I think it would be fair to say we do believe in capitalism more than the rest of the country does. If the rest of the country decided to move even further down the socialist road (we already are a fairly socialist country as it stands) what recourse would Albertans have? We vehemently disagree, we would hate to be forced to bend the knee (which is what it would amount to), and we already think that we're overtaxed. The rest of the country would have the population and the votes to exert their will but if we refuse what happens?

As to funding culture... I'm going to go start another thread before I hijack this one.

Now, how about them U.S politics?

I think McCain is going to win because the nasty turn the democratic race has taken will leave a bad taste in people's mouths. Especially when the left wing members of the party start up with their usual vicious bashing of anyone who happens to disagree with them (the republicans do the same but they are much more polite in the vicious crap they spew and tone matters).

One thing I'd like to say to the people who try to use extreme rhetoric to make their arguments: You need people to listen to you in order to hear what you have to say and when you scream in people's ears it makes them either tune you out or knock you down. And it doesn't matter if you're right, what matters is conveying your message in a way that people who disagree with you are still willing to listen.

I hope that the bitterness on both sides has not made that impossible but I worry that hearts have hardened to such an extent that both just think the other is stupid and/or evil. Or a combination of both.

I think McCain is going to win because the nasty turn the democratic race has taken will leave a bad taste in people's mouths.

*******************

I don't think so.

I would be a LOT closer for Clinton though than it will be for Obama.  I seriously think McCain's age is going to become a problem, as well as how he met and "dated" his wife.  And besides, no one really knows who McCain is or what his stance on certain very important issues are.... like education and the mortgage crunch.

I feel little sympathy for these home buyers (certainly not the only people hurt by this economic depression, but let's focus on them) - all I heard for the last few years was "You got to buy a house!" - well, ha ha on them, right?  But... what do you suggest we do for them?  Debtors prison?  Execute them?  Deport them?  What's your plan?

Mike -- did you mean you feel "a" little sympathy or you have "little sympathy?"  (I think I know but I wanted to be sure).  I have a LOT of sympathy for people who bought a home and now can't afford it.  If there had been better regulation of lending (and credit issuing companies) I might be a little more cavalier, but many people were induced into believeing that the inflated market (driven in part by the lending practices of the time) would sustain itself.  Was this naive?  Maybe.  But it was a situation which fell right into the cross hairs of the American Dream -- of which owning one's own home is a foundation.  I sympathize for people who bought houses believing that the value of the property would not change and that the lending market would be stable.  Add to that the anti-consumer (or borrower) changes to the Bankruptcy code and you have a catch-22 for a great many people.

 The short term way of looking at this is - oh, boo hoo, they're getting some of our jobs, but the long term plan is - they now have disposible income to spend on our stuff.

There is a bit of a fiction inherent in that position -- that the lose of manufacturing jobs is caused mainly by globalization -- more manufacturing jobs have been lost because of automation and technological advances than globalization.  Moreover America doesn't make anything anymore, well except weapons.*  We have become a serviced based economy.  But where I agree with you is that the Millenium Declaration is a worthwhile endeavour if the monies are allocated appropriately and not (as is so often the case with UN backed programs) hijacked by dictators or politicians.  I agree with the principle that "a high tide rises all boats."  If $850 Billion can be appropriately spent and better living conditions in the third world I contend that there will be less bloodshed by Americans. 

*Obviously thats hyperbole -- but one of the initiatives McCain has talked about which I'd love Obama and Clinton to adopt is to get the American sense of innovation and "can do" behind innovating green technology.  I think we should make it a national initiative (and get the corporate citizens involved) to address energy issues and environmental issues though industry. Why aren't we developing more "green tech?"

Thing is, Obama (and Hilary) have had to fight a full-fledged national campaign. Whoever wins will have veteran "troops" in almost every state - no newbie volunteers.

********************

True.  And after waging the "war" as he has against Clinton, I think Obama can handle whatever McCain and the Republicans throw at him.

+++++++++++++++++

 And Obama has had to exorcise his Rev. Wright connection for many weeks now. Imagine how damaging it would have been if Wright's speeches surfaced this coming October instead. 

**************************

As Mike has posted (via the link) Obama's numbers have increased since he denounced Wright.  Had he done so the first time, who knows where he'd be at right now?

What's surprising is how dramatic the numbers are for the General Election.  Both Democratic nominees hold leads over McCain, but Obama's numbers are stronger.  As strong as they were 2 months ago. 

As Mike has posted (via the link) Obama's numbers have increased since he denounced Wright.  Had he done so the first time, who knows where he'd be at right now?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Those polls show the exact opposite. He's been hurt by it. The Indiana and North Carolina polls show the same.

yeah, the poll numbers I posted showed Obama way ahead, specifically because he dumped Wright.

But, as I noted in same post, this changes from day to day, and it's best not to focus too much on it.

Following polls'll make you think that Dewey beat Truman.