Pittsburgh makes Top 50 in the world.

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by Aqua Teen Carl

I think our country is more akin to inverted totalitarianism than socialism.

Never heard the term before but from the Wikipedia entry, it sounds like the term was crafted to describe the US at the time rather than describe an actual political philosophy. Having to cater to a 50%+ of the population for political control can water down the political rhetoric. Probably becomes truer the more heterogeneous the country. So we'll probably move toward a hybrid socialism rather than pure socialism. Maybe we'll be then accepted by the Europeans as their equals. The Canadians already are.

[BrianTH]

People would sound a lot more informed if instead of saying we are heading toward socialism--which is ridiculous claim if you understand the definition of the term, and Obamacare is actually a fantastic example of something which is explicitly NOT socialist because it leaves the actual provision of health care insurance to private companies--they said we might (might) be heading more toward social democracy:

Social democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The chief goal of modern social democracy is the reformation of capitalism to align it with the ethical ideals of social justice while maintaining the capitalist mode of production, rather than creating an alternative socialist economic system.

Note how that definition at least plausibly fits Obamacare.

Of course it is problematic for another reason--while the definition might fit better, many people might find the Social Democratic concept completely unobjectionable. Hence, it has little value as a rhetorical scare tactic. See also here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

[couldntthinkofaclevername]

Originally Posted by GeneW

Well, I'm not going to argue whether that's true or not but you can't deny that we kind of suck at cities.

Actually, I can not only deny that but refute it to the nth degree.

Our cities are some of the best in the world. Not only that, we have more of them in our country than the entirety of the European Union does, and more of them are going to improve and gain population over the next century.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

People would sound a lot more informed if instead of saying we are heading toward socialism--which is ridiculous claim if you understand the definition of the term, and Obamacare is actually a fantastic example of something which is explicitly NOT socialist because it leaves the actual provision of health care insurance to private companies--they said we might (might) be heading more toward social democracy:

Social democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Note how that definition at least plausibly fits Obamacare.

Of course it is problematic for another reason--while the definition might fit better, many people might find the Social Democratic concept completely unobjectionable. Hence, it has little value as a rhetorical scare tactic. See also here:

Nordic model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bingo.

But seriously, calling it Obamacare is something for school children.

Just call it by its name. These pathetic buzz words and nicknames are really, really annoying and well... pathetic.

I know that clearly doesn't fit you, which is why I singled you out to mention how we need to stop with the nicknames and buzz words, since you don't seem the type to use them.

[BrianTH]

I've actually been persuaded that even though "Obamacare" was coined by its opponents, it is evolving into a rhetorically neutral term for the PPACA. It also roughly follows the convention of naming legislation after its chief sponsors (e.g., Dodd-Frank, McCain-Feingold, and so forth). I think reasonable minds can continue to differ on these issues, but that is why I have personally accepted use of the term.