CONTORTED PASTA

But the French in Canada are French-Canadian, not French French (even my Francophobic dad makes that distinction, possibly because he's married to one) – they've been more or less cut off from France for 250 years, and at the French Revolution were part of the British Empire whether they liked it or not. San Francisco has a French consulate and enough of a French population to have a French Catholic parish ... I learned the history of this at Christmas and have since forgotten it, but it's got a history at least.

From:

tony-cliff.livejournal.com

C'est magnifique!

From:

I do not believe I am Francophobic. I see a once-great nation that has fallen from its perch because of a lot of linguini-spined decisions. From not letting American planes fly over on their way to bomb Khadafy’s palace, to selling a lot of WMD supplies to Iraq and Iran, France has a recent history of not acting as a friend of our country. Not the people of France, the government. I supported not buying French products after these events, but I also support not buying Communist Chinese products for the similar reasons.

If I was Fracophobic would I like Ratatouille so much (the food and the movie)? Sure, I do not like French wine, but I dislike all wine. I’d love to visit France. From Normandy to Paris to Menton, there is a lot to see (and eat). Éclairs (and their modern equivalent, the e-clair) Boeuf Bourguignon, French toast, I love them all. If I were Francophobic I’d hate the French people. The one French person I’ve gotten to know half-way decently I happen to like a lot. Then again, I hope one day she will move here and make a certain someone very happy.

I also do not like the socialist mindset of a lot of people there, but then we're doing a drag race to the same place ourselves.

From: (Anonymous)

Hello :) Couldn't help butting in a conversation that looked interesting. Could you define "socialist", Noodledaddy? Because I can't help but wondering if sometimes people (especially Americans, for some reason) tend to mistake socialism for communism. Because the nuance used to be slight at its creation, but now (all local [France, I mean] party dissensions aside), being a socialist means supporting the idea of welfare state, of a good part of health care being paid little by little by everyone (in proportion to their salary), of every citizen having the same rights and duties...

It's a bit hard trying to think at almost 1:30 in the morning, so I'll stop there!

Au revoir!
Belphegor :]

From:

Socialism is defined in Wikipedia as the public ownership of the means of production. This is not quite true as in a capitalist society the public can also own the means of production as shareholders in the companies that produce. What socialism is the state owning the means of production. The state in this case is the federal government. We're moving that way with the state now owning two of the three major car companies. The government also owns a sizeable chunk of many financial institutions. The government is also looking to take over the health care industry. Before you say "no they are not," look at what the government is doing, not what they are saying, then get back to me. All this has happened in six months.

In communism the state owns all property. Buildings, the companies in them, stores, homes, all land. I'm not saying the country is moving to communism, but an interesting part of a new bailout package includes the state taking over the mortgages of people who are behind on payments, and the occupiers paying rent to the state. It's a start.

You can have a welfare state with capitalism. All you need is a good reason to be on welfare as opposed to working. A safety net turns into a hammock quite easily. In the US today, 41% of taxpayers pay no tax. The bottom 50% of wage earners here pay 3% of taxes. The top 1% of wage earners earn 17% of the income and pay 39% of the taxes. I'd say that is more than their fair share.

We should have a safety net. I think it is every person's responsibility to help others. The government is in charge of the welfare system. The government says that a charity who only uses 10% of the money it takes in for administration is a good charity. The US federal government eats up 72% of the money it collects for welfare in administrative costs.

From:

41% of taxpayers pay no tax

You may want to amend your wording here...

From:

I would but it gets complex. If you say that 41% of people pay no tax that would not be right, because those who are old not enough to work or only work a few hours or those who don't make enough to file . . I suppose a good way to put it is 41% of those required to file a tax return, but then you get the filing singly or joint returns thing coming into play.

If the proposed Obama tax increases come into play, and when the Bush tax cuts expire, 51% of Americans who are required to file a tax return will pay no taxes.

I forget who said it, or exactly what they said, but it goes something like this: A democracy is doomed when the people figure out they can vote themselves money. That is what is happening now in the USA.

From:

My point was simply that if you pay no tax, by definition you are not a taxpayer. Amending it to 'those eligible to pay tax' or something like that would escape your semantic paradox.

From:

putri-nih.livejournal.com

I was listening to this discussion on the radio --it was a right-wing, Republican radio talk show. (No, I have no choice in the radio selection...I was mooching off a ride from someone.. sigh)
He was going on and on about how Obama is a commie because he's planning to implement health care plan in The States (and grilling the poor bastard who disagreed with him)

What I always want to know is...why is it that "health care" is automatically "commie" or "socialist"? I asked people but they can't seem to clarify it further than, "it just is."

From:

I don't think Obama is a commie, but I do think he is a socialist. Health care is not intrinsically socialist, or communist, or capitalist. It is how it is delivered that defines it.

If you pay the government, either through taxes, co-pays, or directly, it is a statist system (run by the state). When you pay an insurance company, the doctor or some other way without paying the government, it is a capitalist system. In a state-run system there is rationing. Either by not making certain procedures available or limiting access to them. A look at England's or Canada's systems shows that there are rather important problems with this model.

From: (Anonymous)

If you are a citizen in canada, have no job or money you or your kids will still be able to go see a doctor if you are sick. This would not be the case for someone without insurance in the states. Please also don't get me started on the limits and exceptions insurance companies have on certain medical procedures. Health care is a right, not privilege. Someone living in the states without health insurance could be dead before they can see a doctor!

From:

This is false.

Anybody, even illegal aliens, gets care in American hospitals. You walk in (or call 911 and get a free ride in an ambulance), you get care, you don't pay. It's that easy. "Civil Rights" groups even publish pamphlets with instructions in Spanish on how to get the care and not pay a dime.

If health care is a right, undeniable to anybody, why is it that it is rationed? How do you ration rights? The average wait to see a specialist in Canada is 17 weeks. In the Maritimes it is 22 weeks. The average wait to get a hip replacement in BC is 18 months. A year and a half of agonizing pain, confined to a wheelchair because you can't walk. That's why hospitals in Washington are doing good business in hip and knee replacements. How is it that the wait for an MRI in Canada can be weeks, yet you can get one for your pet in 24 hours? Yes, drug prices are lower in Canada, but many groundbreaking, highly-effective drugs are unavailable to anyone, despite their ability to pay, due to their high cost.

Luckily, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that private health care is no longer illegal and private clinics can be established. Quebec is leading the way. Vive le Quebec healthcare libre.

Re: leave canada out of this once and for all

From:

aspectabund.livejournal.com - Date: 2009-07-20 06:55 pm (UTC) - Expand

Re: leave canada out of this once and for all

From:

noodledaddy.livejournal.com - Date: 2009-07-20 07:29 pm (UTC) - Expand

Re: leave canada out of this once and for all

From:

aspectabund.livejournal.com - Date: 2009-07-21 07:11 pm (UTC) - Expand

From: (Anonymous)

A democracy is doomed when the people figure out they can vote themselves money.

Sooo ...

Voting yourself social programs = democracy dies
Voting yourself tax cuts = democracy wins!

From:

Tax cuts=more money for the government.

Truman, Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush all know and experienced the fact that lowering tax rates increases revenues to the federal government.

Reagan reduced the capital gains rate by 50% and reduced the highest marginal tax rates from 70% to 28%. In 6 years, tax revenues doubled.

IRS stats prove that the rich paid a greater percentage of the total tax revenue under Reagan and Bush (who lowered rates) than they did under Clinton (who raised rates).

Government social programs are horribly bloated. Take welfare for example. Just 28% of the money allocated for welfare ends up in the hands of the recipients. The rest is used up in administration. Putting charitable programs in the hands of non-governmental charities is far superior.

From:

Also, what will happen is what is already happening in high-tax states.

The poor elect people who will provide for them with ever-increasing amounts. The politicians then raise taxes on those who who provide jobs and contribute more to society. Those "rich" people then end up letting workers go so they can still pay the taxes and stay profitable. Those "rich" people then move to areas where the taxes are lower, even if that means going to another country. Looking at corporate tax rates of 30% and going up, Tim Horton's recently moved to Canada, where there is a 15% corporate tax rate.

43,000 people in New York City pay a majority of the income tax revenue collected by the city. With more tax increases that are on the horizon, these 43K people will be paying more than 60% of their income in taxes. When they move, and some will move, New York City will collapse.

From:

I was working on the following pattern: A person can enjoy a movie with homosexuals in the cast and crew, wear clothes designed by homosexuals, ride in a bus driven by a homosexual, appreciate art created by homosexuals, relish food prepared by a homosexual, laugh at jokes delivered by homosexuals, and read books written by homosexuals, but if he calls them 'fags' and stereotypes and/or mocks their behaviour or attributes as a group, he is still a homophobe.

By the way, the 'one of your best friends [who] is French,' who you think so highly of, and who is welcome to correct me if I'm wrong, dislikes Sarkozy because he's too right-wing. Perhaps – just perhaps – the people of France have historically elected governments they want.

From:

I see it as this pattern: A person knows someone is gay so they make sure they have nothing to do with that person because they are gay, such as go to see a movie they are in, or read a book they wrote. They may never openly mock gays in any way.

I have no doubt the people of France got the person they thought they wanted. I contend that the people of the USA did not take the time to fully investigate the person Obama was. They voted for the person they thought they wanted or were told they wanted. Then there are those who knew exactly what it was they wanted, whether it be a person of color no matter what other characteristics he had or a socialist Those people got exactly what they wanted.

From:

I indeed don't like Sarkozy, and had voted for Royal.
I am for gay rights too, and think that France is late on that (compared to Spain for example).

From:

My dear, I am certainly very glad you are not Francophobic (what kind of word is this, anyway ?).
But let's make something clear (and only one cause I suck at politics) : how were we not friends to your country ? By not going and attacking a country without any proof of their terrorism actions ?
a lot of Americans thought then that we had forgotten when you came and help delivering France from the nazi oppression. That is not true. The conditions were different : America was not asking for help because it was occupied, but wanted to go on an awful, unjustified war.
I think we were always friends to the USA, and are even more since Obama was elected. Then again we of course took bad decisions with stupid governments, but to me, the US did worse.
What I love about my country (and I mean that in a french way, not a crazy-fanatic american patriotism way), is that we have very important values, and those values are found in Man. Democracy, republic, separation between Church and State, liberty of choosing your religion, your political party (we don't forbid communism -which fundammentally, is very good principle-), etc.
I don't think I liked it that much when we were a "great nation". Revolution was an amazing action and thought, but it destroyed the very people who intended it. Then there was Napoleon and his stupid conquests, and before what ? Renaissance, kings ? It's part of our History and culture and helped building the way we think today, but when a country thinks of itself as a great nation, then it can think it's the master of the world, bringing war, and controlling others. At lesat, now we are a more modest country, making mistakes like everyone, and holding (even though elelctions do not always reflect it) to our socialism. Socialism is about working and making politics for the people, the workers, the families. To be socialist a little would be a very good thing to be for every nation.
I'd rather be in a country like France, or somewhere in europe where I feel safe, protected, without guns in the street, republicans in the government, death penalty, too much immigration control, and people who think they are the greatest nation in the world. That's FREAKY.

Now, I like you very much too, and I'm glad you want to know things about France (even though I can see some clichés here ;) ).
The only reason why I would be ready to move to the US, is because I'm in love. And nothing is more powerful than that.
See you soon !
PS. You actually stopped buying french products ?? That's crazy ! Poor little people try to make a living, and clack !
On the other hand, too bad for the american people : french food is one of the best thing that could happen to your country. Your bad ;)

From:

I am eagerly looking forward to discussing these topics in person. They are better subjects for face-to-face discussions, not in a more sterile environment like Live Journal. Are you going to be up here in August?

From:

I don't think I'll be able to come to SLC before Disneyboy's birthday... But I can't wait to see you and your family again !
GO, FRENCH FOOD !

From:

Bring some with you!

From:

I never remember them buying French products when I was living there (French stuff is expensive!) – they must have started after I left for college in order to stop shortly thereafter.

From:

disneyboy.livejournal.com

Now, Sweetie, you need to be careful with your words or people might accuse you of being Republicaphobic. ;) Some of my best friends are...ok, I can't finish that sentence without really sounding offensive to Republicans everywhere, but they really are some of my best friends (and family)!
That said, I thought you made some very good points. You should have also mentioned what you were telling me about the thingie you Frenchies ;) do every year(?) to commemorate the liberation of France by the American forces! Then again, ND makes a good point: selling WMD stuff to the Irates sounds like a pretty bad idea. But nobody's perfect. ;)

From: