Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And it helps that the population of Norway is only 5 million people. I'm sure we could find an area in the United States that is only 5 million and it looks much different then the average for our 300 million.
FWIW, Norway also has one of the highest cost of living indexes on the entire planet.
Right. And I suspect that Norway doesn't have a large dependency population that freeloads on the labor of others. In other words, everybody contributes, unlike in this country.
Yeah, I agree with that. But, the fact that our industrial capacity expanded so significantly during the war (thanks to government funding) laid a solid foundation for the markets to take over once the war was over.
Government isn't this horrible, evil thing people make it out to be. At least, it doesn't need to be. It can be a big boon to business, as happened with defense and intelligence contracts that fostered a lot of the IT technology we use today.
So you're all for the "military-industrial complex?"
The stupid people of the US I.E. neocons believe that Socialism is evil and then yell keep your government hands off my Medicare. We have social programs that have been running since the collapse of the capitalist system under a Republican Hoover. We have Socialized schools, how would it be if you had to only go to school if you had the money to pay for private school? How would it be if you could only get the fire dept. to put out your home fire if you had private insurance to the private fire dept.? How would it be if you called the police dept. and were asked if you had paid your dues to the private security firm before they sent help? You see NASCAR watching tobacco chewing idiots who proudly call them self’s red necks and are proud to be stupid as some kind of badge, either do not think of things like this or are too stupid to understand the social consequences of such a world. The world was much like this in the times of the Monarchy’s of England and Russia and were what started the revolutions. Stupid people believing stupid arguments charged with stupid patriotic lies like "this is the greatest country in the world." Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups. I.E. Tea baggers.
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]
I am a highly educated and intelligent conservative living in Chicago and practicing Architecture. I enjoy baseball games, going to the beach... not NASCAR.
The stupid people of the US I.E. neocons believe that Socialism is evil and then yell keep your government hands off my Medicare. We have social programs that have been running since the collapse of the capitalist system under a Republican Hoover. We have Socialized schools, how would it be if you had to only go to school if you had the money to pay for private school? How would it be if you could only get the fire dept. to put out your home fire if you had private insurance to the private fire dept.? How would it be if you called the police dept. and were asked if you had paid your dues to the private security firm before they sent help? You see NASCAR watching tobacco chewing idiots who proudly call them self’s red necks and are proud to be stupid as some kind of badge, either do not think of things like this or are too stupid to understand the social consequences of such a world. The world was much like this in the times of the Monarchy’s of England and Russia and were what started the revolutions. Stupid people believing stupid arguments charged with stupid patriotic lies like "this is the greatest country in the world." Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups. I.E. Tea baggers.
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]
You could have summed that all up by saying "get your hands off my freebies."
A little socialism is good so a lot of socialism must be better.
Quote:
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.
While I do agree with much that you said, you are wrong in a few key areas.
Uhh, no...no more than Conservatives.
It's not paltry. The associations that govern said aspects of America play a huge part in everyday life. I agree that the true concept of Socialism cannot be obtained yet, but it does not mean that you should not try. Democracy was a new concept back in the founding of America and it was far from perfect, in fact it still is, but it has come a long way.
You say that Socialism has failed in many places it has gone to. That is simply not true Communism has failed nearly everwhere it has gone (for the most part. There are certain aspects that worked but that's a different argument). Communism, contrary to popular belief, is not compatible with Socialism, they are completely different.
People don't truly understand Socialism. The only part that people need to know to be against it is that it helps out everyone on everyone's dime. It's a very forgiving system and people don't like that because many have the ideology of "This is mine and nobody elses." A decent amount of people wouldn't mind a Socialistic government. Not that majority but enough people to make noise. And the "move to another country" bit is old.
You just said that if we wanted Socialism we should go to a country that has it but we never were anywhere close to Socialism. And just here you say that we, "aren't even getting the sort of healthcare program other nations have. There are many countries with socialized medicine, and in those countries, the care is actually being provided by the government. This is not the case with our plan. We are simply being forced to buy insurance. That is by no stretch of the imagination the same thing." And this is the closest idea brought up by Obama to Socialism that there has been yet you talked about American becoming (or not becoming) a Socialistic state. Since healthcare reform is not Socialism (And I'm not sure why people are saying it is) we are nowhere near Socialism.
The Socialistic countries of the world are pretty much the EU, Canada and New Zealand. Although they aren't completely Socialistic and since the turn towards Socialism have done quite well.
In short: America is not near Socialism. Healthcare reform is not Socialism. Socialism countries do very well and you confused them with Communist states.
I think you are very confused about what socialism is. Social welfarism (which is what exists in most European contries) is not socialism. Socialism is government control of the economy, where government bureaucrats try to make the same kinds of supply-and-demand decisions that the free market now makes. So the government decides what products to produce, how much to produce, what to charge for those products and how much to pay the people who make the products. That system was tried and failed in the Soviet Union and its satellite countries, China, Cuba and every other communist country on the face of the earth. China finally realized that its economy was going nowhere under this sytem and so it is gradually moving to a capitalist-style economy and now it is booming. Liberals talk about socialism. But what they really mean is welfarism where they tax producers--both business and individuals--so that they have a fat slush fund to dole out to their favored constituencies, in other words those who will vote them into and keep them in power. Both socialism and welfarism have one thing in common, however. They end up killing the golden goose.
I think you are very confused about what socialism is. Social welfarism (which is what exists in most European contries) is not socialism. Socialism is government control of the economy, where government bureaucrats try to make the same kinds of supply-and-demand decisions that the free market now makes. So the government decides what products to produce, how much to produce, what to charge for those products and how much to pay the people who make the products. That system was tried and failed in the Soviet Union and its satellite countries, China, Cuba and every other communist country on the face of the earth. China finally realized that its economy was going nowhere under this sytem and so it is gradually moving to a capitalist-style economy and now it is booming. Liberals talk about socialism. But what they really mean is welfarism where they tax producers--both business and individuals--so that they have a fat slush fund to dole out to their favored constituencies, in other words those who will vote them into and keep them in power. Both socialism and welfarism have one thing in common, however. They end up killing the golden goose.
Well said. Socialism and Social Welfare are not the same.
That's not true. The government has some of the highest standards for quality and reliability in things like electronics, information transfer systems, military equipments and weapons. They have no use for weapons and equipment that doesn't work or fails in the field. I do however agree that sometimes they care nothing about the cost and if it was a government facility that was to create those things it wouldn't be very efficient at all. As it is, for the things I mentioned above, they contract those out to the private sector because they can do it faster, cheaper and better.
I don't say this from an outside looking in perspective either. I worked for one of those private entities that created and manufactured the things I mentioned above.
True, when the government spends "someone else's money on themselves" they are concerned with quality, but less-so with how much it costs.
I am a highly educated and intelligent conservative living in Chicago and practicing Architecture. I enjoy baseball games, going to the beach... not NASCAR.
14% unemployment is "pretty good?" Then you must be absolutely thrilled with the current official rate of 10% (we all know it's mush higher). And how was that great rate of 14% achieved? By sending millions of men off to war. As far as the tech revolution that was the result of private innovation not government spending. So if you expect the same kind of revolution in energy from government spending you'll be sadly disappointed.
This one's too easy.
When the capitalist system failed and created an unemployment rate of 24%, using the mechanisms of government to bring it down by 10 points to 14% was quite an achievement.
And, actually, the New Deal got us down to 14% BEFORE the war. It was the war - the soldiers and all the industrial manufacturing that went into it - that brought the unemployment from 14% down to 4%.
Every tech revolution, from rail to cars to the internet, has been a combination of government and business - usually government contracting and investments combined with private sector innovation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
