The Best Reason Now To Be An Expat In Argentina...

[StevePalermo]

Why not point out that those who live at the "poverty line" in the USA would live a life of "abundance" in all poor nations.

Wealth is not only created, it is accumulated over time.

The "wealth" in the United States does not belong to the collective (or as you say, the nation.)


But those in power have a clear desire to redistribute it to the rest of the world,

I'd disagree strongly that "those who live at the "poverty line" in the USA would live a life of "abundance" in all poor nations". That just doesn't hold up. They may not be the bottom of the pile but they'd still not be considered living in abundance compared to those that actually do.

CEOs earning 380 times the average salary of their employees is an unfair share I would say. Whether its the nation or 'the collective'. I suspect the concept of fairness doesn't come into things in your ideology, but I could be wrong.

 

[gusgutier]

The President of the United States is a pathological liar and you think call Mark Steyn a "whack job" is important?

If Steyn is a "whack job" could you please give an example of his mental instability.

Hopefully, without additional blasphemy.

I recently heard him deal quite effectively with a self proclaimed "Liberal" who thought that Obamacare was constitutional, citing eminent domain and the military draft.

Talk about whack jobs!

Imagine the government coming after a kidney or a lung based on the power of eminent domain or drafting organ donors while they are still alive.

If some people have a right to health care and need a kidney why should you have two?

Sounds absurd, doesn't it?

Just wait.

A little socialism is never enough.

Now you can call me a whack job, too.

[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]I don´t want to get into an american discussion, but only share some info. Those who live in Argentina must know that is "donante presunto " (allegedly donor ) law. That´s to say you are a donor unless you clearly specify you don´t want to be. The communist ( well, little pink coloured ) government will seek for your lungs, kidneys, or whatever needed if you´re in conditikon to donate (dead or almost). So try not to have brain damage. [/background]

 

[ElQueso]

StevePalermo, I understood the point you were trying to make on the income equality index. The point I was trying to make in rebuttal though (and I know I get too wordy and confuse the issue at times! Heh.) is that I don't believe that index is a valid indicator of what it is trying to be used for. I believe that in those countries that are poor but above us in the index that there is probably some sort of statistical anomaly caused by something having to do with a spread of factors, probably having to do with growth, the large number of poor and relatively small, but growing number of middle class and rich people. And the fact that the US is a wealthy nation, there are some seriously rich people that skew that average as well I'd bet, more than the rich in those other countries, for example.

No matter what the index says, it simply can't be a good indicator if we have to move closer to conditions in India, for example, in order for us to "get better" on this index. It is common sense that says whatever we are doing, at least right now, is still better than what they are doing. Doesn't mean we should just sit there and do nothing, but we should examine the problem.

And we shouldn't be in a hurry to fix it, either.

Politicians are really good at getting people moving in a direction that they want. If their motives were pure that wouldn't be so troubling, but I believe many politician's motives are not so pure. Obama and healthcare is a prime example of that, in my opinion, no matter how it eventually turns out.

You have to go back and remember the relatively overwhelming control he had when he was first elected. Mid-terms in two years. They knew that when mid-terms came along, good chance that they would lose some of that tight control. Therefore, it was hurry up and get a bill out and start pushing it before you even really knew what was in it (remember - Pelosi assured us that we couldn't know what was in the bill until it was passed!). Remember Pelosi and her determination to walk through the gate, pole vault over the fence, parachute in, etc. All that in the first two years of Obama's reign, while he had control.

And remember also how tight it was (when thinking about why they had to do it, before mid-terms) getting it passed, when Kennedy died and what's-his-name the Republican surprised everyone and took Kennedy's seat - that caused a lot of backroom shuffling to make sure a better, revised bill didn't get pushed back to the Senate and went on to the House and got passed.

I know we've mentioned all that a lot, but I thought a summary was in order for the next words that shall escape from my keyboard:

"First, do no harm."

Why did Obama have to do all that? Because in all of this, he is not trying to do good for the country as much as he is trying to push his vision of the country on the rest of us. A lot of us are really happy with that - but a lot of us are really, really unhappy with that. Maybe it's a good vision, maybe it isn't, but it isn't his choice alone! And I happen to think it's not a good vision.

Read those quotes I posted previously. If we, as a country, are bound and determined to change such a huge portion of our economy and the bent of our laws, it MUST go through more scrutiny and more acceptance. Something this big should have caused a Constitutional referendum to consider an amendment. More planning should have been looked at to make it right. It shouldn't have been passed in backroom deals and tricks of procedure. It shouldn't have. It is obvious from the writings of those who created this country that something like the ACA was not only not envisioned, but was thought to be a bad sort of thing to most of them.

Why was it created and pushed through like it was? Because Obama knew full well that he would never have passed it if it went past those first mid-terms. He would not have had his little puppy in play, with his name in the lights as the glorious savior of the poor and down-trodden in the States. Etc, etc.

Which brings me back to the index - my belief is that indexes like these are created (by both parties, no doubt) to make people see things that aren't there, to make people feel that they need things they don't really need, to drive the dependence on those in power to fight evil and protect the flock. But the numbers don't mean what they seem to mean.

It seems to work very well.

In all of this, if the harm that would be done was considered, versus the potential good to come out of Obama's specific bill, if there had been honest, open dialog by both sides, ACA would never have happened. Pushing something through as was done just because you think (or know) the other side will do everything they can to fight it doesn't give the other side the right to fight the way they did - no justifying the means by the end. Invalid. Those fighting against it truly believe that it is a very bad thing for the country, for the most part. I have no doubt there are some who would oppose Obama just for the sheer joy of it, but I don't think that's a majority. They feel it's a huge step that has not been thought out and they are doing everything they can legally to try to lessen its impact.

Maybe it getting passed was good and maybe it's bad. The general consensus seems to be that it's not off to a great start, a lot of "wait and see" while money is wasted (that is harm), while people freak out and are very unsure of what their medical future looks like (a lot more than there were before - that's harm) and so on and so forth.

And in the end, it's going to get relatively few people what they want. Will the harm caused be worth it?

 

[ghost]

Haven't you leaned by now that I don't believe in ghosts or anything they say?

They're never coherent.

Nonetheless, I must give you credit for being able to say more than booo, Mr. Ghost.

The import thing is that ghosts do not believe in Steve. [nor most others here] Boooo.

 

[EricLovesBA]

The word "terrorist"...

For instance, Breivik

he's not a terrorist, he's a crazy killer


While Belmokhtar

is a terrorist !



terreo in Latin = I frighten



Oh, and a drone attack

is a drone attack



That's my best reason to be in Argentina! We are far away from all that crap!

I believe the reason the guy used the word "terrorism" in that zone of Pakistan, according to several people in the interview the drones are cruising the area, flying low at night, creating a general feeling of fear and trepidation, and randomly blowing people up. Any adult male in the area is counted in the reported statistics as an "enemy combatant". The kid who lost several of his family members basically said he's studying in school, but his heart isn't in it. Nothing really matters any more. When the drones are in the area he just goes to his room and turns up some music or television to block out the sound. Sounds like an environment of terror to me. If I'm in the US, if I want to stop thinking about people coming to get me, I pretty much just need to turn off CNN and suddenly my environment is peaceful. I look around and I don't see anything terrifying. Who is the terrorist?

 

[nicoenarg]

I'd disagree strongly that "those who live at the "poverty line" in the USA would live a life of "abundance" in all poor nations". That just doesn't hold up. They may not be the bottom of the pile but they'd still not be considered living in abundance compared to those that actually do.

CEOs earning 380 times the average salary of their employees is an unfair share I would say. Whether its the nation or 'the collective'. I suspect the concept of fairness doesn't come into things in your ideology, but I could be wrong.

Its not unfair if the shareholders are fine with it, which is usually the case. CEOs are tasked with making sure the whole company is profitable, at the end of the day (unlike governments apparently) the buck really does stop at the CEOs desk. That is why they resign or are forced to leave if what they end up producing is a debacle (how many people have been fired for the mess of a website that's going to end up costing over a billion dollars? How many were fired for the invasion of Iraq over what's considered to be fabricated reasons?). And even if the CEO just sat in his or her chair all day and picked their nose, and even if he or she was getting paid 1000 times more than the average salary of the rest of the employees, its got nothing to do with fair or unfair since if he or she was paid less doesn't automatically mean others would be paid more. It just means the shareholders will get to keep more as profit (which is the sole reason the company is functioning in the first place). So in other words, he or she is not taking anyone else's share..

And I think you missed steveinbsas's point: The wealth is neither the collective's nor the nation's. It belongs to the people who worked their @$$es off to create or accumulate it. In this case, the shareholders. And so they can dispense with it as they please.

Talking about fair and unfair though:

Starting pay for a CPA in one of the big fours (which shall go unnamed): $4500 en mano (starting out), $6500 en mano (after a couple of promotions)
Street cleaners: $7000 en mano (2012; starting out)
Truck drivers: $10,000 en mano (starting out)

Now I would say that that is unfair because the latter two jobs require zero to very little previous experience or previous "hard work" as opposed to becoming a CPA. That is something I would call a lopsided economy where the incentive is in not working hard. And the only reason for this kind of economy is that the latter two have strong unions who can twist the government's ear (who are forever in the middle of business, screwing things up) but the former don't.

This is what happens in an economy not based on merit but based on envy of "well why does the other guy have so much" without thinking "maybe the other guy worked his butt off to get where he is".

But even with all that, here's something else that's truly unfair. A baby born completely healthy while another born, at the same time, with cancer, or an organ that's not functioning, or blind or deaf...

What do you do? Whine about the healthy baby being healthy ("why does the CEO have so much money?!!!)? Take out or damage the organs of the healthy baby so it is equal to the one born unhealthy? Or work hard, day and night, to make sure the unhealthy baby has a fighting chance?

This whole "its not fair!" cry has gone a little too far these days. Is it unfair that a kid who parties all night fails his exams because of that while the kid who studies hard passes? Should the kid who passes his exams have to fail or have lower grades just because the other kid couldn't set his priorities straight? Yup, I know of schools that already reward the behavior of imbeciles; they don't care much about studying but still end up passing their exams.

I wouldn't be surprised that when they grow up, and are not rewarded for bad behavior, they too are going to be whining about it all being "unfair".

 

[steveinbsas]

Thank you, ElNicoOriginal,

I could not have said it better.

In fact, I think you said it much better than I would have.

 

[steveinbsas]

I'd disagree strongly that "those who live at the "poverty line" in the USA would live a life of "abundance" in all poor nations". That just doesn't hold up. They may not be the bottom of the pile but they'd still not be considered living in abundance compared to those that actually do.

I am living a life of "abundance in Argentina" on less than $1000 USD per month, and that includes paying for food, lp gas, nafta, electricity, insurance, cell phone and internet, direcTV, and maintenance of my car and my four bedroom home. Even at xoom rates, my property taxes (for 247 mtrs2of construction and 10,000 mtrs2 of land) are about $100USD per year.

I don't travel and I don't eat in restaurants, but I don't want to. I have everything I want here and I could not possibly live like this in the USA.

All I need now is for the love of my life to join me here.

 

[steveinbsas]

Ben Stein’s New Article also says it better than I could:

WE'VE FIGURED HIM OUT!
By Ben Stein

"Why was President Barack Obama in such a hurry to get his socialized medicine bill passed? Because he and his cunning circle realize some basic truths:

The American people in their unimaginable kindness and trust voted for a pig in a poke in 2008. (Pig in a poke means: an offering or deal that is foolishly accepted without being examined first. A poke means sack.)

They wanted so much to believe Barack Obama was somehow better and different from other ultra-leftists that they simply took him on faith.

They ignored his anti-white writings in his books.

They ignored his quiet acceptance of hysterical anti-American diatribes by his minister, Jeremiah Wright.

They ignored his refusal to explain years at a time of his life as a student.

They ignored his ultra-left record as a "community organizer," Illinois state legislator, and Senator.

The American people ignored his total zero of an academic record as a student and teacher, his complete lack of scholarship when he was being touted as a scholar.

Now, the American people are starting to wake up to the truth. Barack Obama is a super likeable, super leftist, and not a fan of this country.

The American people have already awakened to the truth that the stimulus bill -- a great idea in theory -- was really an immense bribe to Democrat interest groups, and in no way helped ALL Americans.

The American people already know that Mr. Obama's plan to lower health costs while expanding coverage and bureaucracy is a myth, a promise of something that never was and never can be --
"a bureaucracy lowering costs in a free society." Either the costs go up or the free society goes away... an historical truth.

Now, we face a devastating loss of freedom at home in health care. It will be joined by controls on our lives to "protect us" from global warming, itself largely a fraud, if believed to be caused by man. Hillary has also signed on to a Small Firearms Treaty at the U.N. This is a back door gun control move. If this is approved by the Senate and a 2nd Amendment majority doesn't exist in the Senate now. It will supersede all U.S. Law and the 2nd Amendment. All citizen possession will be eliminated through confiscation. Just Like Great Britain and Australia .

Mr. Obama knows Americans are getting wise and will stop him if he delays at all in taking away our freedoms. There is his urgency and our opportunity. Once freedom is lost, America is lost. Wake up, beloved America."

 

[John.St]

Ben Stein as in: Ben Stein, the narrator from "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"?

The only words coming from him you can trust are 'Why', 'was' 'in', 'such', 'a', 'to', 'get', 'and'.