For crying out loud!
-
@bellwells said:
Anssi, did I read somewhere that Finland is trying to de-socialize itself?
Maybe you did read, but Finland has been ruled by coalition governments (with 'bourgeois' majority except in 1906-8 and 1966-70). So it has never been socialist. So maybe you are mixing us up with the small Baltic countries (Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia) that were occupied by the Soviet Union in WWII. Even they have already had since 1991 to de-socialize themselves.
Anssi
-
I thought the Scandinavian countries were under some form of socialism in which the government provided health care, full retirement and the like all paid for with fairly high taxation.
I have to say I like the coalition approach. I prefer it when Congress is gridlocked or on recess. The less the "govern", the better we are.
-
@anssi said:
@unknownuser said:
All the better. Still, Palin tried to get books removed. Bad thing. B-A-D.
I'm a bloody foreigner but according to snopes.com the claim is false.
Anssi
What snopes is saying is false is that there is/was a list of books that she tried to or did have banned. That is false. What isn't false is that she approached the librarian and asked her if she would be opposed to banning certain titles and she said she was. I also understand that the librarian was fired,, although that claim has been disputed. As Stinkie said just the fact that she wanted books to be banned is bad enough.
-
Ron,
@bellwells said:
...government provided health care, full retirement and the like all paid for with fairly high taxation...
...isn't socialism, it's social consciousness. As for "coalition approach": that's what our "founding fathers" invisioned. George Washington, in his farewell address, said: "A two party system will be the death of our Republic."
-
@tomsdesk said:
@bellwells said:
...government provided health care, full retirement and the like all paid for with fairly high taxation...
...isn't socialism, it's social consciousness./quote]
Yeah. You're right about the health care, the high taxes etc, Ron, (we have the same system in Belgium) but you're quite wrong when you call that approach socialist (or communist, cause that's what you mean) - it's just a humane approach.
We may have 'too much government' for your taste, but I can assure you you're a lot better off being out of a job, or ill, over here than in the US. That's something I want to spend more than half of my income on - solidarity doesn't come cheap.
-
-
@mr s said:
Hi kwist,
Your example of choosing between Pepsi and Coke is spot on.
Like the main political parties, you are being offered something that seems all sweetness and light. You then discover that you are ingesting a sugary chemical drink that will rot your teeth and if enough is consumed will rot your insides!
Most of the world does not want a one-world coca-cola mono culture.
Neither do I.Regards
Mr SIt's more like comparing Coke and milk. (Chocolate milk in this case - please don't imply a racist slur) One rots your teeth and the other re-builds strong bones.
-
Stinkie, I would never confuse communism with socialism. I define communism as the government controlling the means of production (the old USSR) while socialism is the government providing cradle-to-grave care of it's citizens. I don't need or want the government to care for me; I don't want that dependence. I think the essential job of government is to protect I believe excessive government interferes with individual freedom. Some would point our own Patriot Act as proof of this.
I do see the humane-ness of socialism, but I would not be willing to spend 50% of my income on it. Doesn't that high of a tax rate tend to interfere with entrepeneurial efforts? I would think there would be a disincentive to earning. I guess it comes down to the life style we are each used to.
I notice the "I have no job..." at the bottom of your posts. I hope this is a temporary condition.
Tom, Washington was right, wasn't he? He also mentioned the importance of religion in this speech, which is interesting considering how repellent the concept is to some these days.
-
@bellwells said:
Doesn't that high of a tax rate tend to interfere with entrepeneurial efforts? I would think there would be a disincentive to earning.
You'd think so, wouldn't you? In practice, however, this doesn't seem to be the case. At least, everyone I know wants to work (and does so). Possibly this has something to do with the desire to 'make something out of yourself'. You know, status, self esteem. I don't think there are that many people who want to spend their lives sitting on their behinds and vegetate.
@bellwells said:
I notice the "I have no job..." at the bottom of your posts. I hope this is a temporary condition.
Heh ... don't worry about me. It's a conscious choice. I felt it was time to start working on my own stuff, rather than to spend my days at some office. The "yay" in my signature is far from ironic.
As for being too dependant on the government, I've never experienced it that way. In fact, I feel our system gives us a lot of chances, rather than keeping us dependant. An example. A couple of years ago, I got layed off from my McJob (hauling boxes). I'd been working for a few years and thus met the requirements for unemployment. I got about € 1000 a month ($ 1.461,4), which meant I didn't have to worry about paying the rent etc. In effect, getting unemployment gave me the great opportunity to better myself: I had all the time I wanted to study (well, a year, after that, the benefits diminish). So I did: I spent my days studying the ins and outs of Dutch grammar. To cut a long story short: that helped me quite a lot to get a job as an editor/copywriter. Which was a lot better than lifting boxes. The way I see it, if temporary state benefits enable you to get ahead in life, they effectively improve your individual freedom.
I guess it's all a matter of what you're willing to do with the chances and opportunities that are available. And it's a good thing there are indeed chances and opportunities. I am very much willing to pay for that. Perhaps I won't be needing the 'help' of the state anymore, but there's always someone who does.
Errr ... we got a lot less homeless people than you boys do.
That speaks for our approach, I think. -
I watched the debate as well, and I thought both candidates made some strong points. I give an edge to Obama, just because I felt he gave more concise answers and descriptions of what he has planned and what his agenda will consist of, and McCain resorted to mostly referencing his past experience rather than what he intends to do, and blatant flag waving. As I found out this morning when I discussed the debate with a friend who loves McCain and hates Obama, based on your politics really dictates who you thought won the debate. I don't think anyone clearly "won", and most of the experts agreed it was mostly a draw.
-
i have just have watched the match between Obama and McCain.
and i have got the impression that Obama stands strong and correct.
i think will win. -
@fella77 said:
I watched the debate as well, and I thought both candidates made some strong points. I give an edge to Obama, just because I felt he gave more concise answers and descriptions of what he has planned and what his agenda will consist of, and McCain resorted to mostly referencing his past experience rather than what he intends to do, and blatant flag waving. As I found out this morning when I discussed the debate with a friend who loves McCain and hates Obama, based on your politics really dictates who you thought won the debate. I don't think anyone clearly "won", and most of the experts agreed it was mostly a draw.
Actually, most of the polls and reviews have declared Obama the winner.
-
This whole matter of a winner and a loser is unimportant to me. Obama is a better orator. Substance and character is what matters to me. As Solo said in another thread, one decides the winner based on their own bias and this is why the media will declare Obama the winner every time.
-
Yes, I don't listen to most of the media in the US. Right wing fascists. I get my news from the BBC.
Here's a comment from across the pond, courtesy of BBC.
It's the bankers I feel sorry for, losing all that money. How humiliating it must be for them. My heart goes out, too, to the politicians who have been saddled with this crisis; George Bush, in particular, who's made so many personal sacrifices for the American people. If things get worse, he may be forced to sell one of his oil wells. And poor John McCain will probably have to sell one of his houses just to keep his head above water. It's not so bad for the poor: after all, they're used to it.
PJMolloy, Dublin
-
@pbacot said:
Yes, I don't listen to most of the media in the US. Right wing fascists. I get my news from the BBC.
Here's a comment from across the pond, courtesy of BBC.
It's the bankers I feel sorry for, losing all that money. How humiliating it must be for them. My heart goes out, too, to the politicians who have been saddled with this crisis; George Bush, in particular, who's made so many personal sacrifices for the American people. If things get worse, he may be forced to sell one of his oil wells. And poor John McCain will probably have to sell one of his houses just to keep his head above water. It's not so bad for the poor: after all, they're used to it.
PJMolloy, Dublin
My Lord, no wonder you think the US media is right wing. If this type of story represents your news sources, EVERYTHING is to your right, even the left-wing media.
Advertisement