# Socialistic Nations = Happiest People



## catzmeow (May 11, 2009)

World's Happiest Places

I find this study very interesting.  I've always been a free market capitalist, but find myself wondering if America's emphasis on work, above all else, is really working for us, or healthy.

Is work more important than life?  Or do these northern European countries know something we don't?  Have they learned to balance work and life in a way that we haven't?

I think the question we have to ask ourselves, as a country is:  "Is the American way of life working for the vast majority of Americans?"  I'm not sure, and I don't have any answers, but thought I'd share.


----------



## DiamondDave (May 11, 2009)

And you find people who say that poor people are the happiest people...

Don't mean I want to strive to be poor or be in a country that strives towards socialism


----------



## catzmeow (May 11, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> And you find people who say that poor people are the happiest people...
> 
> Don't mean I want to strive to be poor or be in a country that strives towards socialism



Do you have a response that results from actually reading the article in question, or are meaningless platitudes all we can expect from you?

We hear, repeatedly, how socialism = bad.  It's practically modern American dogma.  But, it appears to me that those countries simultaneously have some of the HIGHEST productivity levels AND the highest happiness levels.  So, the standard response that socialism kills personal motivation appears to be false.

Maybe, people can be MORE productive when they aren't walking around with a toothache or in chronic pain because they can't afford health or dental care?  It's a thought I am having more often these days, spending most of my time working with poor people.


----------



## DiamondDave (May 11, 2009)

catzmeow said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > And you find people who say that poor people are the happiest people...
> ...



It's a freaking article... not the law of God or a 100% accurate piece of research

My response.. I enjoy the positives and negatives of my freedom more than I enjoy thinking that others exist to take care of personal responsibilities of those who don't take care of themselves


----------



## editec (May 11, 2009)

American is currently flummoxed by a myth that we've taken to heart.

The myth of the almightly individual.

Now it is very convenient for those on top of the heap to keep driving that myth into the zietgiest since by doing so, they insure that people don't get together and take down the ediface of lies that keep so many of us fearful.

Up here in this neck of the woods of Maine, I can take you to people who live on welfare who vote Republican and who swear that unions are the worst thing in the world even though most of them have never been involved with a union and few of them have ever worked for anything but minimum wage.

Such confused thinking is, I think typical of a people who have been fed complete nonsense by the media.

Most of these types have thousands of dollars worth of guns which they are sure they're going to need when the BLACK uprising happens and all those urban minorities (who are also all collectivists) come to Waldo county to steal their doublewides and rape their (second fattest in the USA) women.

If their confused attitude wasn't so tragically ignorant, and wasn't making them into perfect tools for the people who have nothing but contempt for them, it'd actually be funny.


----------



## bigdaddygtr (May 11, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> And you find people who say that poor people are the happiest people...
> 
> Don't mean I want to strive to be poor or be in a country that strives towards socialism





Socialism is NOT a place with only poor people.  I lived in Europe and saw many people with plenty of money, but of course someone tries to make it out to be this awful thing and then the idiots in this country believe you.

And btw, no Socialist country has nearly the amount of poor people we do


----------



## Lucklaster (May 11, 2009)

I sure wouldn't call myself a socialist, but my interpretation of the clause in the preamble "promote the general welfare" is for government to attempt to do the most good for the most people. If it caters only to the self interests of a select social class, it fails in this regard, and if the perception exists within a society that the odds are stacked in favor of the elites, then many people will run around with a chip on their shoulder even if they are relatively well off compared to the most impoverished people of the world. It isn't wealth per se, but the distribution of such that is at the heart of why Americans are not up there with the Danes and Swedes and whatnot.

 I'm a firm believer in a strong and vibrant middle class, and the economic trends in this country have been away from such ever since Reagan's voodoo economics. I think if we could ever get back to the ethos where we sought to build a more vibrant middle class and gave people more of a stake in their lives, I think we would see happiness levels increase. A good start might be to support small business. In 1960, people shopped at their local grocer, pharmacy or hardware store and the people running these businesses had, not only a stake in their lives, but a stake in their community. Today, people shop at walmart or Home depot, and the grunts working at these places have neither. If government could assume the role of helping to level the playing field insted of being inthe hip pocket of big business, I think the general level of happiness would increase.


----------



## WillowTree (May 11, 2009)

catzmeow said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > And you find people who say that poor people are the happiest people...
> ...






Perfect example,, We want dental care just like Great Britain has don't we? Can't fucking wait!


----------



## DiamondDave (May 11, 2009)

Lucklaster said:


> I sure wouldn't call myself a socialist, but my interpretation of the clause in the preamble "promote the general welfare" is for government to attempt to do the most good for the most people. If it caters only to the self interests of a select social class, it fails in this regard, and if the perception exists within a society that the odds are stacked in favor of the elites, then many people will run around with a chip on their shoulder even if they are relatively well off compared to the most impoverished people of the world. It isn't wealth per se, but the distribution of such that is at the heart of why Americans are not up there with the Danes and Swedes and whatnot.
> 
> I'm a firm believer in a strong and vibrant middle class, and the economic trends in this country have been away from such ever since Reagan's voodoo economics. I think if we could ever get back to the ethos where we sought to build a more vibrant middle class and gave people more of a stake in their lives, I think we would see happiness levels increase. A good start might be to support small business. In 1960, people shopped at their local grocer, pharmacy or hardware store and the people running these businesses had, not only a stake in their lives, but a stake in their community. Today, people shop at walmart or Home depot, and the grunts working at these places have neither. If government could assume the role of helping to level the playing field insted of being inthe hip pocket of big business, I think the general level of happiness would increase.



Promote the general welfare does not go towards promoting or entitling more of the individual wants and needs of the most people.. it promotes the general welfare of a populous as a whole.. we were set up to have the personal freedoms to succeed or fail by our own merits, and securing those personal freedoms as a country... you ensure everyone has the liberty to operate to provide for themselves, not ensuring that you squelch the freedoms of some to take care of the personal needs of others by an all controlling government


----------



## editec (May 11, 2009)

_"Promote the general welfare"_ means whatever those in charge says it means.

That's why selecting the people in charge is so damned important and why how we fund the campaigns of those running for office is so damned important, too.

What we have now virtually assures us that both parties are going to define_ the general welfare_ as that which benefits those who support their poltical careers and beyond.


----------



## JBeukema (May 11, 2009)

Social Democracy =/= Socialism =/= a socialized Republic =/= Neosocialism


----------



## Coloradomtnman (May 11, 2009)

Here's the other thing about these socialistic countries: they don't worry about being thrown out in the street, they don't worry about bankruptcy because of medical bills, they get at least a month of vacation a year, they don't work 40 hours a week, they get time off for all sort of reasons, and money isn't the most important thing in the world, like it is here for many people.  Yet most people in these socialist countries have a lifestyle that is equal materially to people living in the US.

Sounds nice to me.  I'd love not to miss much of my children's childhoods because I have to work so much just to keep a job so I can support them.  I'd love to have the opportunity to travel or take lots of time off to deal with my personal life.  I get one week a year right now.  One week!  That is enough time to do jack squat!  I work 81/2 to 9 hours a day and some weekends.  And I'm getting a 3% pay cut.  Its as if my life revolves around my job and my personal life is whatever I can get after work.  I'm not happy and don't feel healthy at all, struggling to cope and just barely managing to get by.


----------



## catzmeow (May 11, 2009)

Coloradomtnman said:


> Sounds nice to me.  I'd love not to miss much of my children's childhoods because I have to work so much just to keep a job so I can support them.  I'd love to have the opportunity to travel or take lots of time off to deal with my personal life.  I get one week a year right now.  One week!  That is enough time to do jack squat!  I work 81/2 to 9 hours a day and some weekends.  And I'm getting a 3% pay cut.  Its as if my life revolves around my job and my personal life is whatever I can get after work.  I'm not happy and don't feel healthy at all, struggling to cope and just barely managing to get by.



At the midway point of my life, I am now looking forward to saying goodbye to my kids in a few short years.  It's a shame that I had to spend so much of their childhoods working so damn hard to establish myself professionally, and not seeing as much of them as I'd have liked.  And now, as they are on their way out, I can finally have the freedom to do more with them.  It's a delicate balance.

And, in this downward slope of my life, I don't see myself saying, "Gosh, I wish I'd worked more."  I wish I'd been able to spend more time with my kids.

I wish every kid in America was in a good school, so I wouldn't have had to make enough money to live in an expensive neighborhood so they could attend a high quality public school.  I wish every American had access to health care so that kids in my community weren't trying to attend school with aching teeth every day.  I wish families weren't bankrupted because a mom gets breast cancer.  I wish every kid had what i've had to work so hard to give my kids.

Maybe we're doing it wrong.


----------



## editec (May 11, 2009)

We do not need to become a socialist nation to live well. Capitalism is more than able to help us work together to produce and distribute wealth in a way which most of us would think is sensible and fair, too.

We do need to remember that the pupose of being a member of a civil society is to gain the benefits of being in it though.

According to the monsters (and their idiot minions who so often grace us with their thoughts on this subject) the pupose of our government is 

1. To have military; and
2. To have a police force so that they will protect other people's property

That's it folks.

That really is all some of these people think a goverment is supposed to be doing.

Everything else is, according to their read on the subject, a violation of the Constitution.

They are not exactly the world's deepest social thinkers, know what I mean?

The whole _cause and effect_ thing, as it regards society and what happens when they spin out of control, is a bit beyond their ability to envision.

So their every response to every problem generally involves draconian responses usually involving putting people in jail or vaporzing them or somehow forcing them to go along with the program.

The irony is that these people _think_ they love freedom.

No, what they seem to love is order, when order means that they benefit from a civil society without having to pay for it.

Read the libertopian fairy tale _Atlas Shugged_ and you'll get a fairly good idea of how confused they are about human nature, the individual's place in soceity, and how societies actually function.

Their belief that the maket can solve every ill is as misguided as the communists' belief that government can solve every ill.

Simple minds seek simply solutions because they lack the resolve to look deeply at how complex the problems every society faces really are.


----------



## auditor0007 (May 11, 2009)

catzmeow said:


> World's Happiest Places
> 
> I find this study very interesting.  I've always been a free market capitalist, but find myself wondering if America's emphasis on work, above all else, is really working for us, or healthy.
> 
> ...



All but one of those countries, Switzerland, leans more to the socialist side of the spectrum.  Switzerland actually is closer to the our philosophy of a more limited government.  At our current rate however, we will become more like the rest of those socialist type countries than Switzerland. 

The fact is that overall, the socialist philosophy provides a better life for everyone.  The safety net is much greater, and so their is a smaller portion of less well to do or impoverished in those systems.  Everything is wonderful.  People don't need to work quite as hard as we do, and they have more leisure time.  It really is a nice way of life.

Unfortunately, reality is beginning to set in.  This form of governance is not sustainable.  We think we have problems with SS and Medicare?  Those countries are going to hit a brick wall before too long.  Why is it that these countries are allowing massive immigration of Muslims?  Because they don't have anyone left to make the economy grow.  The only problem is, all those immigrants are just adding to the existing dole, making matters even worse.  

As their population grows older, and they refuse to replace that population with hard working individuals, the tax base is evaporating.  While we in the US are facing a rough road ahead, due to our aging population, those countries are in dire straits.  All one need do is look at Japan.  While Japan is not on that list, these countries have the same problem that Japan does.  They don't have enough young people to support their aging population.  This is why Japan is paying young couples $10,000 to $15,000 for every child they have.  They're paying young people to make babies.

When these countries finally do hit this brick wall, that lifestyle they so enjoy will come to a crashing end, and that isn't too far down the road.  People like Sarkozy see this already, and that is why he is trying to increase working hours and reduce benefits, because he understands that it is not sustainable.  It will be a slow process, and it probably is coming much too late.  

While the people of these countries are currently extremely happy, this same poll in a couple of generations will look very different, I will guarantee you this, because the standard of living for those people will be cut in half as there will be no one left to foot the bill for all of their excesses.  And this is why we cannot go down this same path, or we will find ourselves in the same mess with our children and those who follow them with a much lower standard of living than we now enjoy.


----------



## manu1959 (May 11, 2009)

Coloradomtnman said:


> Here's the other thing about these socialistic countries: they don't worry about being thrown out in the street, they don't worry about bankruptcy because of medical bills, they get at least a month of vacation a year, they don't work 40 hours a week, they get time off for all sort of reasons, and money isn't the most important thing in the world, like it is here for many people.  *Yet most people in these socialist countries have a lifestyle that is equal materially to people living in the US.*
> Sounds nice to me.  I'd love not to miss much of my children's childhoods because I have to work so much just to keep a job so I can support them.  I'd love to have the opportunity to travel or take lots of time off to deal with my personal life.  I get one week a year right now.  One week!  That is enough time to do jack squat!  I work 81/2 to 9 hours a day and some weekends.  And I'm getting a 3% pay cut.  Its as if my life revolves around my job and my personal life is whatever I can get after work.  I'm not happy and don't feel healthy at all, struggling to cope and just barely managing to get by.



having lived in danmark for a year .... not even close ....


----------



## Red Dawn (May 11, 2009)

catzmeow said:


> World's Happiest Places
> 
> I find this study very interesting.  I've always been a free market capitalist, but find myself wondering if America's emphasis on work, above all else, is really working for us, or healthy.
> 
> ...




these countries aren't socialist.   

They are hybrid economies that balance euntrepenurship with generous social welfare states. 

Socialism is a system where all means of production and distribution is owned by the state.  I think Scandanvian corporations like Volvo or Nokia would laugh at being called socialists. 

The swedes, the dutch, and the danes are outstanding euntrepeneurs.  I seriously doubt they are fans of Lenin or bolshevism. 

I think the reason they are happier is those countries place a healthy balance between family life, the greater good of society, and cut throat capitalism.   They found a middle ground.   

I don't see anything wrong with 8 week vacations, mandatory paid maternity leave, subsidized child day care, and 35-40 hour work weeks.      I don't think its a big secret these societies are happier.   That sounds like a good deal to me.


----------



## xotoxi (May 11, 2009)

editec said:


> Up here in this neck of the woods of Maine, I can take you to people who live on welfare who vote Republican and who swear that unions are the worst thing in the world even though most of them have never been involved with a union and few of them have ever worked for anything but minimum wage.
> 
> Such confused thinking is, I think typical of a people who have been fed complete nonsense by the media.
> 
> Most of these types have thousands of dollars worth of guns which they are sure they're going to need when the BLACK uprising happens and all those urban minorities (who are also all collectivists) come to Waldo county to steal their doublewides and rape their (second fattest in the USA) women.


 
This sounds vaguely familiar, except for the Waldo County portion.


----------



## xotoxi (May 11, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> Perfect example,, We want dental care just like Great Britain has don't we? Can't fucking wait!


 
Have you ever been to Maine and looked into someone's mouth?

Welcome to Great Britain.


----------



## auditor0007 (May 11, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> > World's Happiest Places
> ...



But again, for how long will they be able to maintain this?  That is the real problem for them.


----------



## xotoxi (May 11, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> All but one of those countries, Switzerland, leans more to the socialist side of the spectrum. Switzerland actually is closer to the our philosophy of a more limited government. At our current rate however, we will become more like the rest of those socialist type countries than Switzerland.


 
If you want this country to become more like Switzerland, first we will have to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and then give everyone in the armed services a fancy multi-use pocket knife.


----------



## editec (May 11, 2009)

xotoxi said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Perfect example,, We want dental care just like Great Britain has don't we? Can't fucking wait!
> ...


 
True dat.

Dental care is the great divide between near poverty and sheer poverty.

Here's an interesting factoid...

Maine offers something called Maine CARE for those who are lacking health care.

Now Maine CARE will happily remove teeth for those whose teeth are killing them (as teeth will over time, if they're in bad shape..usually by heart disease, I'm informed).

But here's the fly in that ointment.

MaineCARE doesn't help people get dentures.

Apparently not being able to chew one's food isn't thought a significant health risk in Maine.

Chew over that for a while...if you still can.


----------



## JBeukema (May 11, 2009)

Coloradomtnman said:


> Here's the other thing about these socialistic countries: they don't worry about being thrown out in the street, they don't worry about bankruptcy because of medical bills, they get at least a month of vacation a year, they don't work 40 hours a week, they get time off for all sort of reasons, and money isn't the most important thing in the world, like it is here for many people.  Yet most people in these socialist countries have a lifestyle that is equal materially to people living in the US.



They're not supporting a 3rd world shithole whose 2nd largest source of national income is American dollars sent across the borders, largely by illegals


----------



## JBeukema (May 11, 2009)

manu1959 said:


> [
> 
> having lived in danmark for a year .... not even close ....



Outside of Danemark, we call it 'Denmark' Kinda like how 'Deutchland' becomes 'Germany'- noone said it made sense 

Call it Danmark  and noone will know what you're talking about


----------



## auditor0007 (May 11, 2009)

xotoxi said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > All but one of those countries, Switzerland, leans more to the socialist side of the spectrum. Switzerland actually is closer to the our philosophy of a more limited government. At our current rate however, we will become more like the rest of those socialist type countries than Switzerland.
> ...



We'll also need to make certain more people have their own guns.  Gun ownership per capita is higher in Switzerland than in the US.  Also, every young male will need to serve two years of active military duty, followed by three weeks per year of reserve duty, usually up to the age of 30.  

Don't make fun of the Swiss and their pocketknives.  They know how to shoot and their army, while vastly relying on reserve forces, is over 600,000 strong.


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 11, 2009)

catzmeow said:


> Do you have a response that results from actually reading the article in question, or are meaningless platitudes all we can expect from you?
> 
> We hear, repeatedly, how socialism = bad.  It's practically modern American dogma.  But, it appears to me that those countries simultaneously have some of the HIGHEST productivity levels AND the highest happiness levels.  So, the standard response that socialism kills personal motivation appears to be false.
> 
> Maybe, people can be MORE productive when they aren't walking around with a toothache or in chronic pain because they can't afford health or dental care?  It's a thought I am having more often these days, spending most of my time working with poor people.


i think its a little bit more than that Cat....the pressure to live in countries who have tremendous economies compared to the Scandinavian countries who have much smaller economies and population,and basically concentrate on taking care of themselves compared to the US,Japan and others....i am sure there is a big difference.....there is also a monster difference in the size of the operation....California has a bigger economy than any one of the Scandinavian  Countries,and more people.....yea its much easier taking care of 4-6 million people compared to 300 million in a country 20x their size....


----------



## xotoxi (May 11, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > auditor0007 said:
> ...


 
Plus, they provide complete military services for another sovereign nation.

And their uniforms are rather fanciful.


----------



## auditor0007 (May 11, 2009)

My mother is Swiss, born in Bern, raised in Lyss, and worked at Nestle's headquarters in Vevey for many years as a chemist.


----------



## Sinatra (May 11, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> > World's Happiest Places
> ...




Glad someone caught this simple fact as it pertains to this thread.  

Some would do well to travel a bit more - go to Denmark and call them socialist and see the response you will likely get.  Or Norway, Sweden, etc.

These nations are example of western European big government models that have socialized aspects to them, but are hardly "socialist".

As to their boundless happiness...a recent report indicated alcoholism in Swedish women increased by 50% in the last decade.  Either they are piss drunk depressed, or happy sh-t faced.  Not sure on that one...


----------



## GHook93 (May 11, 2009)

catzmeow said:


> World's Happiest Places
> 
> I find this study very interesting.  I've always been a free market capitalist, but find myself wondering if America's emphasis on work, above all else, is really working for us, or healthy.
> 
> ...



I don't buy it! People can manipulate a survey to get the results they want.


----------



## Red Dawn (May 11, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> > Do you have a response that results from actually reading the article in question, or are meaningless platitudes all we can expect from you?
> ...




So if you lived in a country of ten million people, you would gladly and happily abandon your rightwing republican unfettered free market ideology, and vote for liberal social democratic governments?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 11, 2009)

Simple facts. The Europeans live longer, and have healthier old age. They have a much lower infant mortality. They do not have old people losing their homes because of medical bills. Their workers have much more vacation time per year than ours, and the vacation time goes with them from job to job.

I have been one of those lazy blue collar liberals all my life. Other than the period I worked for the Forest Service, I have worked as a millwright in sawmills, construction, and steel mills. In six months, I will be 66, and on full rocking chair. I look back at the amount of time I have spent at work, six day weeks normal, seven day weeks often, many weeks with more than 84 hours on the paycheck. Do I feel that the system has rewarded me in a equal manner that it has rewarded those that shuffle paper? No, not at all. In fact, I see so many of those in management as parasites. 

When people in my position screwed up, they went out the door. When people in management screwed up, they often recieved bonuses. 

In the US, the CEO's recieve hundred's of times what a worker recieves. In Europe, at the most, it is tens of times. Yet Europe also has successful people who start new businesses. The problem is the incestuous relationship in the boards of directors in our businesses. Our model has now successfully embroiled the world in a deep recession created by these very people that have recieved so much of the wealth this nation creates. Does that not indicate that our model is deeply flawed? Rewarding incompetance in high places while failing to reward competance on the factory floor? 

Yes, it is time for major change in this nation. I really do not care what labels you choose to put on it, but we must start rewarding competance at all levels. And incompetance must be rewarded as well. Rewarded in exactly the way that it is at my level.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 11, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > catzmeow said:
> ...


----------



## Tech_Esq (May 11, 2009)

editec said:


> American is currently flummoxed by a myth that we've taken to heart.
> 
> The myth of the almightly individual.
> 
> ...



Interestingly, at least to me, I was reading Obama's buddy Cass Sunstein's book Nudge recently. I wanted to taste the Kool-aid from the other side.

Basically, it boils down to this: You people are too stupid to run your own lives. The choices in the real world are far too complex for you to grasp. It isn't your fault you're so dumb, it's just that system is stacked against you. Every industry is created by people wholly occupied with getting your dollar, so the idea that you could actually come out a winner in any transaction with these providers of necessities and desires is extremely minimal. You are simply out classed. 

Having said that, what would work is if this playing field was modified a little. You need someone that knows a lot about all of these things you need to look at them for you and pick out a few that actually make sense and provide you with a more limited, but safer array of products and services. That way you can't hurt yourself you dumb little imbecile.

I haven't finished the book so maybe there is another message buried in there, but it looks like we're all bound for the short bus and the scissors that are blunt pointed and not too sharp.

Thanks for the offer Edi....but I'll pass. You let them run your life if you think you're too dumb to do it yourself. That would be my observation of you, but I guess that's what you want.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 11, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > auditor0007 said:
> ...



Perhaps we also need to support some mental health initiatives as the Swiss gun violence level is far lower than that of the US.

I believe that every citizen should have national defense and national emergency training. And all should do at least 18 months of national service of some sort. And, yes, I have a little peice of paper called a dd214 that says honorable.


----------



## Red Dawn (May 11, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Red Dawn said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...




apparently there is some magical "size" when liberalism is demonstrated to be the world's best system of society and government.   And even rightwingers evidently freely admit that liberalism is the absolute far and away best system "below" a certain population number. 

Canada is number 6 in happiness, with 20 million people, so I wish rightwingers would tell me what this magical number threshold is.


----------



## midcan5 (May 11, 2009)

The problem with this type of question of happiness is most people are not happy. They always want more and they assume their present location affords them the best opportunity to get to point 'happy.' 

Since material well being is probably the biggest determinant of happiness, or an least the essential ingredient, then socialistic type humanitarian societies with safety nets and freedoms are way ahead of the dog eat dog world of most Americans. 

This fellow challenges most Americans desire to get there, wherever that may be. 

"Psychologist Dan Gilbert challenges the idea that we'll be miserable if we don't get what we want. Our "psychological immune system" lets us feel real, enduring happiness, he says, even when things don't go as planned. He calls this kind of happiness "synthetic happiness," and he says it's "every bit as real and enduring as the kind of happiness you stumble upon when you get exactly what you were aiming for.""

Dan Gilbert asks, Why are we happy? | Video on TED.com

Listening again to the above made me aware of why most Americans are unhappy. 

"The great source of both the misery and disorders of human life, seems to arise from over-rating the difference between one permanent situation and another. Avarice over-rates the difference between poverty and riches: ambition, that between a private and a public station: vain-glory, that between obscurity and extensive reputation. The person under the influence of any of those extravagant passions, is not only miserable in his actual situation, but is often disposed to disturb the peace of society, in order to arrive at that which he so foolishly admires. The slightest observation, however, might satisfy him, that, in all the ordinary situations of human life, a well-disposed mind may be equally calm, equally cheerful, and equally contented. Some of those situations may, no doubt, deserve to be preferred to others: but none of them can deserve to be pursued with that passionate ardour which drives us to violate the rules either of prudence or of justice; or to corrupt the future tranquility of our minds, either by shame from the remembrance of our own folly, or by remorse from the horror of our own injustice."  Adam Smith


----------



## Old Rocks (May 11, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > American is currently flummoxed by a myth that we've taken to heart.
> ...



LOL. A Conservative talking about people too dumb to run things? What about the last eight years? Your bunch ran things with such incompetance that we have had a major attack on the US, with the instigator of that attack getting away scot free. We have two failed wars, one started on the basis of lies. And an economic debacle that is still threatoning to create the Second Great Republican Depression. 

Of course, you just cannot understand why the voters rewarded you with the soundest drubbing that the Republican Party has received since 1932. For the very same reasons.


----------



## auditor0007 (May 11, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Red Dawn said:
> ...



It is not sustainable.  So whether it is a better system or not is a moot point.  Actually, it's not a moot point.  What is the point of having such a wonderful system if future generations will not have the same benefit?  In fact, is it right to borrow and force future generations to pay for our indulgences?  How does that make it a great system?  It doesn't.

We are facing this right now by borrowing so much against the future.  Those countries have been and are doing it in a much worse way.


----------



## Tech_Esq (May 11, 2009)

midcan5 said:


> The problem with this type of question of happiness is most people are not happy. They always want more and they assume their present location affords them the best opportunity to get to point 'happy.'
> 
> Since material well being is probably the biggest determinant of happiness, or an least the essential ingredient, then socialistic type humanitarian societies with safety nets and freedoms are way ahead of the dog eat dog world of most Americans.
> 
> ...



I think that once people have their "needs" met, (i.e. not worried about food, shelter, health, transportation and paying their basic bills), they tend to get to a place where they are satisfied to some extent where they are and live their lives in comparative happiness. I don't think most people feel like they need a million dollar salary to get there either.

That's not to say that everything is milk and honey and people wouldn't take more if it were offered.


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 11, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > catzmeow said:
> ...


whom are you refering too here?...Cat or me?


----------



## JBeukema (May 11, 2009)

America is socialist. She has been supporting Mexico's sorry ass for a long time now. mexico is still a 3rd world shithole. Socialism DEBUNKED


----------



## MaggieMae (May 11, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> Lucklaster said:
> 
> 
> > I sure wouldn't call myself a socialist, but my interpretation of the clause in the preamble "promote the general welfare" is for government to attempt to do the most good for the most people. If it caters only to the self interests of a select social class, it fails in this regard, and if the perception exists within a society that the odds are stacked in favor of the elites, then many people will run around with a chip on their shoulder even if they are relatively well off compared to the most impoverished people of the world. It isn't wealth per se, but the distribution of such that is at the heart of why Americans are not up there with the Danes and Swedes and whatnot.
> ...



Such a happy interpretation!  If only it were true. Unfortunately, there are large segments of society which will SQUELCH the opportunities of others as they attempt to secure their own personal needs.

I always find it amusing when the clause in the Preamble of the Constitution "promote the general welfare of the people" is parsed as practically just an afterthought, whereas the "provide for common defense" is taken so literally as to mean carte blanche permission to make war whenever and wherever we want.

I don't think there are any absolutes in the Constitution. It was intentionally written in ambiguous or all-encompassing language because the framers knew that time did not stand still, and the constitutional guidelines should remain only as the blueprint for building modern societies.


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 11, 2009)

Happy, shmappy.

I have never been happier.  I am married to a great girl.  We have realized a dream of owning our own business.  We have a house and property that we love.  We are saving to buy 30-40 acres out west to retire on.

Life is good.

and btw working a lot is not a bad thing.  you just have to be working *for* something.


----------



## MaggieMae (May 11, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> Red Dawn said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



The demise of "socialist" states like France and Great Britain has been predicted for eons. It hasn't happened yet, generation after generation.


----------



## Toro (May 11, 2009)

In these surveys, Africans are often happy people even though they are poor.

Sociologists have found that the level of unhappiness rises when inequality rises.  This is because people anchor their expectations to their expectations and comparisons to others.


----------



## Agnapostate (May 11, 2009)

Scandinavia isn't socialist in nature--it practices social democratic capitalism, and as with liberal democratic capitalism, is ultimately a foe of socialism because of its ability to utilize the welfare state to maintain the physical efficiency of the workforce and thus consequently appease worker militancy. 

However, I'm quite certain that social democracy (and related forms of Rhine capitalism), is indeed an improvement over the more rightist forms of liberal democratic and Anglo-Saxon capitalism. For instance, an appropriate empirical source to consult would be Headey et al.'s _Is There a Trade-Off Between Economic Efficiency and a Generous Welfare State? A Comparison of Best Cases of `The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism_. Consider the abstract:



> A crucial debate in policy-making as well as academic circles is whether there is a trade-off between economic efficiency and the size/generosity of the welfare state. One way to contribute to this debate is to compare the performance of best cases of different types of state. Arguably, in the decade198594, the US, West Germany and the Netherlands were best cases best economic performers in what Esping-Andersen (1990) calls the three worlds of welfare capitalism. The US is a liberal welfare-capitalist state, West Germany a corporatist state, and the Netherlands is social democratic in its tax-transfer system, although not its labor market policies. These three countries had rates of economic growth per capita as high or higher than other rich countries of their `type, and the lowest rates of unemployment. At a normative or ideological level the three types of state have the same goals but prioritise them differently. The liberal state prioritises economic growth and efficiency, avoids work disincentives, and targets welfare benefits only to those in greatest need. The corporatist state aims to give priority to social stability, especially household income stability, and social integration. The social democratic welfare state claims high priority for minimising poverty, inequality and unemployment. Using ten years of panel data for each country, we assess indicators of their short (one year), medium(five year) and longer term (ten year) performance in achieving economic and welfare goals. *Overall, in this time period, the Netherlands achieved the best performance on the welfare goals to which it gave priority, and equalled the other two states on most ofthe goals to which they gave priority. This result supports the view that there is no necessary trade-off between economic efficiency and a generous welfare state.*



That being said, it's my opinion that there are certainly elements of capitalist inefficiency that cannot be eliminated by mere social democracy. No less than a radical re-organization of property rights and extension of democracy into the economic realm (i.e. *true* socialism),


----------



## JBeukema (May 11, 2009)

Toro said:


> In these surveys, Africans are often happy people even though they are poor.
> 
> Sociologists have found that the level of unhappiness rises when inequality rises.  This is because people anchor their expectations to their expectations and comparisons to others.



They think they're happy because they're not currently being raped or pillaged- or eaten by a vulture. Standards are low in Africa


----------



## Xenophon (May 11, 2009)

All of those countries rely heavily on immigration to do the menial work they are unwilling to do, they have infact set up a happy life for themselves, and an underclass of workers who make it work for them.

Such a foundation is a house of cards and it will colapse in on teh Europeans.


----------



## Toro (May 11, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > In these surveys, Africans are often happy people even though they are poor.
> ...



Of all the continents, America is most popular in Africa.  Maybe for the same reasons.


----------



## Red Dawn (May 11, 2009)

Xenophon said:


> All of those countries rely heavily on immigration to do the menial work they are unwilling to do, they have infact set up a happy life for themselves, and an underclass of workers who make it work for them.
> 
> Such a foundation is a house of cards and it will colapse in on teh Europeans.






Its awesome when Cons who've never been overseas, and have probably never left the confines of their home state, give us lectures about europe.


----------



## Zoomie1980 (May 11, 2009)

catzmeow said:


> World's Happiest Places
> 
> I find this study very interesting.  I've always been a free market capitalist, but find myself wondering if America's emphasis on work, above all else, is really working for us, or healthy.
> 
> ...



1) Scandinavian countries are almost 100% ethnic and culturally homogeneous with very tiny low-income ethnic minority populations.

2) Even in Scandanavia, health care and social services are highly rationed.  

Most of the wealthy hide large portions of their income out of country and most wealthy, especially elderly Scandinavian get their serious health care taken care of abroad, mostly in America.

Much of the rest of Socialist Western Europe has been, until recently, homogenic societies.  One simply cannot translate the ability of small, relatively wealthy, homogeneous to make socialism work into large, ethnically, culturally and educationally diverse populations as the US, India, and China.  In countries like Germany and France where they are being flooded with indigent immigrants, the social welfare system is rapidly collapsing.

Socialism does not scale, and does not overlay diverse countries such as Russia, at all.

For socialism to work you have to have about 20-1 or better ratio of contributors to claimants.  Wealthy, small countries like Norway can achieve that.  In the US we could only achieve that if we had only about 15,000,000 social welfare recipients with all the rest getting little to no social welfare input.  Simply impossible in this country.


----------



## Red Dawn (May 11, 2009)

Zoomie1980 said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> > World's Happiest Places
> ...





canada is not homogenous, and they rank number 6 in happiness. 

You tare obviously admitineg the liberals of northern europe have a pretty good deal going; that liberalism works fantastically well for them.....is you're argument really that its _too hard_ to emulate the liberal social democracies of europe?




Are you really going to defend your rightwing ideology by saying the northern europeans have it great, but it would be too hard to emulate them?   


way to defend your ideology bro! 

Why don't you take a shot and give us a few examples of successful, prosperous, stable, and happy nations that follow the rightwing U.S. republican ideology on markets and economics?


----------



## Zoomie1980 (May 11, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> Zoomie1980 said:
> 
> 
> > catzmeow said:
> ...



Health care is highly rationed in Scandanavia and most of the upper income earners shelter large portions of their wealth outside the country and seek major medical treatment abroad.  Not sure how "happy" that makes them.

The social welfare of most of Western Europe is collapsing. Debt to GDP ratios in France and Germany are MUCH worse than ours.  At some point the Chinese and Gulf Oil States will cease to be able or willing to finance the social welfare systems of the US and Europe.  At that point it will ALL collapse, and we once again, be on our own as our governments will no longer be able to borrow to pay for safety nets.  And that will be the start of GOOD times again....


----------



## Nik (May 11, 2009)

Xenophon said:


> All of those countries rely heavily on immigration to do the menial work they are unwilling to do, they have infact set up a happy life for themselves, and an underclass of workers who make it work for them.
> 
> Such a foundation is a house of cards and it will colapse in on teh Europeans.



Umm, ever hire a maid?  Or see a janitor?  Or watch construction workers?  Or watch farm workers?  Or watch day laborers?

America relies on immigration a lot more than European countries do.


----------



## JBeukema (May 11, 2009)

Nik said:


> America relies on immigration a lot more than European countries do.



largely of the illegal variety


----------



## garyd (May 12, 2009)

You are aware of the old saying "ignorance is bliss?  Of course Africans are happy they don't know any better. Of course Canadians and most Europeans are happy they think all there problems have been solved.

By the way such surveys are generally seriously flawed for any number of reasons.


----------



## Red Dawn (May 12, 2009)

Zoomie1980 said:


> Red Dawn said:
> 
> 
> > Zoomie1980 said:
> ...



Dude, you've never been to scandinavia, let alone been friends with scandinavians.  I worked with a mulitnational company, and all of the norwegian employees I worked with and were friends with were happy with their health care. 

Do you have something, besides a rightwing link, that demonstrates how horrible their healthcare is?  And if its so horrible, why are they superior to us in every single health metric, from child mortality to average life age? 



> The social welfare of most of Western Europe is collapsing. Debt to GDP ratios in France and Germany are MUCH worse than ours.



Link?

I went to the CIA word fact website, and Sweden's public debt is 36% of GDP.  

Ours is *60.8%* of GDP.  Ours is worse.  MUCH worse.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

Are in in the habit of just making up shit and pulling it out of your ass? 



> the Chinese and Gulf Oil States will cease to be able or willing to finance the social welfare systems of the US and Europe.  At that point it will ALL collapse, and we once again, be on our own as our governments will no longer be able to borrow to pay for safety nets.  And that will be the start of GOOD times again....






Is that what you read on some rightwing blog?   Shouldn't this be in the conspiriacy forum? 


I'm still waiting for you to name one single, solitary country on the planet, that is successful prosperous, and happy, and follows the tenets of U.S. rightwing republican ideology. 

Don't bother trying to grasp onto Switzerland.   If they were the 51st state, they would be considered the most liberal state in the country with their generous social welfare state.


----------



## auditor0007 (May 12, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > Red Dawn said:
> ...



Until recently, these countries were not experiencing an aging and declining population at the same time.  This is a first and is the reason that their system is in no way sustainable.


----------



## auditor0007 (May 12, 2009)

Zoomie1980 said:


> Red Dawn said:
> 
> 
> > Zoomie1980 said:
> ...



I'm not so certain that having all of our safety nets collapse will be a great thing.  Unfortunately, it is going to happen, especially in Europe.  Certain safety nets are a good thing.  Letting them become the driving force of a society however, is not.


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 12, 2009)

Nik said:


> Xenophon said:
> 
> 
> > All of those countries rely heavily on immigration to do the menial work they are unwilling to do, they have infact set up a happy life for themselves, and an underclass of workers who make it work for them.
> ...



DO THEY?.....other forums with a lot of Europeans posting sure as hell dont give me that feeling,they seem to have just about as many as the US....only many of theirs are from the African Cont......


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 12, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> Dude, you've never been to scandinavia, let alone been friends with scandinavians.  I worked with a mulitnational company, and all of the norwegian employees I worked with and were friends with were happy with their health care.



thats what they tell you RD then when your gone they bitch and moan about it among themselves.....


----------



## garyd (May 12, 2009)

Germany 62.5% Belgium 100% and france 67.5 % have higher debt to GDP ratios than the US and France is privatisng much of it's industry.. Sweden is also roughly 95% Swede, France 90% French, GErmany 95% German. The largest ethnic minority in Germany is Turks at 2%.

Canada sits on a sea of oil And Sweden isn't for all it's rep otherwise isn't a whole lot more socialist than we are with the only major difference being Medical. All countries with so-called single payer systems (ie government) suffer from an acute shortage of medical staff for the government run hospitals. It is by the way exactly what you would expect. After all why spend 8 -12 years in college to take on an extraordinarily stressful job that doesn't pay significantly more than driving a truck?


----------



## Said1 (May 12, 2009)

Truck drivers make about 40k a year, here. Sucks to be a GP.

You might find more accurate stats here, or not.

http://laborsta.ilo.org/STP/guest


----------



## Toro (May 12, 2009)

garyd said:


> Germany 62.5% Belgium 100% and france 67.5 % have higher debt to GDP ratios than the US and France is privatisng much of it's industry.. Sweden is also roughly 95% Swede, France 90% French, GErmany 95% German. The largest ethnic minority in Germany is Turks at 2%.
> 
> Canada sits on a sea of oil And Sweden isn't for all it's rep otherwise isn't a whole lot more socialist than we are with the only major difference being Medical. All countries with so-called single payer systems (ie government) suffer from an acute shortage of medical staff for the government run hospitals. It is by the way exactly what you would expect. After all why spend 8 -12 years in college to take on an extraordinarily stressful job that doesn't pay significantly more than driving a truck?



According to the OECD, the US is the 6th most indebted nation of the 28 nations in the OECD.


----------



## Dr Grump (May 12, 2009)

The American system is broken and is in a lot more trouble financially than most European countries, or Australia and NZ....poor buggers....


----------



## Red Dawn (May 12, 2009)

Toro said:


> garyd said:
> 
> 
> > Germany 62.5% Belgium 100% and france 67.5 % have higher debt to GDP ratios than the US and France is privatisng much of it's industry.. Sweden is also roughly 95% Swede, France 90% French, GErmany 95% German. The largest ethnic minority in Germany is Turks at 2%.
> ...





hmmmm.....every rightwing talking point has collapsed.  

They really were clinging to that canard that the europeans had MUCH more debt than we did, weren't they. 

Why, its almost as if the rightwing blogs they read, just routinely lie to them and make shit up out of whole cloth!


----------



## Chris (May 12, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > garyd said:
> ...



Europe does a lot of things well, and we can learn from them.


----------



## elvis (May 12, 2009)

Chris said:


> Red Dawn said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



like coddle dictators.


----------



## Chris (May 12, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Red Dawn said:
> ...



No, that's what we do.


----------



## elvis (May 12, 2009)

Chris said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



does the name Neville Chamberlain mean anything to you?


----------



## Dr Grump (May 12, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> like coddle dictators.



Like Batista? Pinochet? Noriega? The House of Saud? The Shah of Iran? Those kinds of dictators?


----------



## elvis (May 12, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > like coddle dictators.
> ...



like Hitler.


----------



## Dr Grump (May 12, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> does the name Neville Chamberlain mean anything to you?



Yep, he was the Prime Minister of England who declared war on Germany - 2 years and 2 months before that non-coddler Roosevelt did....


----------



## Dr Grump (May 12, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



So far it's USA: 5, Europe: 1


----------



## Red Dawn (May 12, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > does the name Neville Chamberlain mean anything to you?
> ...


----------



## elvis (May 12, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > does the name Neville Chamberlain mean anything to you?
> ...



Roosevelt didn't declare war on Germany.  France could have stopped Hitler in 1936 if they had sent troops into the Rheinland.  They didn't.  Chamberlain did all he could to appease Hitler.  Doesn't sound like people I want to learn from.


----------



## elvis (May 12, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



childish. wanna play candyland while we're at it?


----------



## Dr Grump (May 12, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> ]
> 
> Roosevelt didn't declare war on Germany.  France could have stopped Hitler in 1936 if they had sent troops into the Rheinland.  They didn't.  Chamberlain did all he could to appease Hitler.  Doesn't sound like people I want to learn from.



Actually thanks for reminding me, the US didn't even have the nads to declare war on Germany, Hitler declared war on the US. So what does the rest of the world learn from that? 

Yeah, well, other than a civil war that had occurred long after the last participant died, you wouldn't know what it was like for people living in post WWI Europe. WWI was very much in the memories of Europeans and they tried to stop it happening again. Hindsight is 20/20. The last time the French did anything of military significance Napoleon Bonaparte was the head honcho...

Yet the US gets involved in a war it has no business being in (Viet Nam). What lesson did you learn from that? Nothing. 36 years later you're in another war that is none of your business. Your country certainly sounds like a place the rest of us could learn from, problem is we already took the lesson notes and learned from it. Pity you guys couldn't do the same...


----------



## Dr Grump (May 12, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> childish. wanna play candyland while we're at it?



So, let's get this straight. You belittle Europe for mollycoddling to one dictator, I point out the US has done that to at least five, and I'm being childish? hhhmmm...no wonder you righties never learn....


----------



## elvis (May 12, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > ]
> ...



Germany wasn't America's problem.  She was Europe's  If the French had marched into Rheinland when Hitler violated Versailles, Hitler would have had to withdraw.  Instead she did nothing and got conquered  in three weeks, and by some miracle, Hitler didn't slaughter the Brits at Dunquerque.  In comes the US and rescues France once again.      

we got involved in Vietnam to bail out who?  The French AGAIN.


----------



## elvis (May 12, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > childish. wanna play candyland while we're at it?
> ...



no, chrissie the commie said we should LEARN from Europe.  I was disputing that. and take your condescending attitude and shove it up your Euro ass.


----------



## Red Dawn (May 12, 2009)

all western powers have coddled dictators including the US. 

Its a desparate attempt to divert the thread. 


This is 2009, not 1939. 


I'm still waiting to hear one single, solitary example of a successful, prosperous developed democratic nation that follows the tenets of rightwing republican ideology. 

the rest of the rightwing attempts to explain away the general stability and life quality in liberal social democratic nations have ended in hilarious failure.  Especially the dude who said the europeans had incurred "much' more debt than we had


----------



## elvis (May 12, 2009)

No one could have anticipated that Germany would be stupid enough to declare war on the US.  While with regard to Europe, he made clear what he wanted to accomplish in Mein Kampf and England and France wrote it off as rhetoric.


----------



## elvis (May 12, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



Mussolini, Kaiser Wilhelm II, Otto von Bismarck, Ho Chi Minh, There its tied. Happy now?


----------



## elvis (May 12, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> all western powers have coddled dictators including the US.
> 
> Its a desparate attempt to divert the thread.
> 
> ...



When I said "coddle dictators", I was thinking specifically of Hitler.  I was disputing that we have "much to learn from Europeans".  I found that interesting when you consider that had Hitler not declared war on the US, Europe may very well be a Nazi state to this day.  
What are we supposed to learn, how to commit national suicide? 
I am aware the US and Europe have both coddled dictators.    
what is your definition of right wing republican ideology?


----------



## Xenophon (May 13, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> Its awesome when Cons who've never been overseas, and have probably never left the confines of their home state, give us lectures about europe.


It's awesome when Red dawn makes stupid assumptions, is 100% wrong, and proves again he doesn't know his ass from his elbow.

You would think we would be used to it, as he does it virtually every post, yet he manages to top himself time and time again in dumb comments.

Tell us genius, all about the riots in France 2 summers ago, what were they about?

Tell us why certain sections of Sweden are no longer considered accessable to police.

Tell us why the German government felt that it was critical that new immigrants be required to learn german.

The next factual thing you say will be the first factual thing you have ever said on this board (and anywhere else for that matter).


----------



## Xenophon (May 13, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> I'm still waiting to hear one single, solitary example of a successful, prosperous developed democratic nation that follows the tenets of leftwing democratic ideology.


We are waiting Francis, pony it up.


----------



## Said1 (May 13, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



Don't forget Stephan Harper, another socialist dictator.


----------



## Red Dawn (May 13, 2009)

Xenophon said:


> Red Dawn said:
> 
> 
> > Its awesome when Cons who've never been overseas, and have probably never left the confines of their home state, give us lectures about europe.
> ...





can you give me something other than a link to a rightwing blog, that factually demonstrates that vast swaths of scandinavia are out of control and inaccessible to police?   My scandinavian friends have not informed me of this astonishing event!  


with regard to germany, I don't admire everything about europeans.   I think the U.S. is an amazing country with regard to our constitutional freedoms and our tolerance for diversity.  At least in relation to other countries. 

But, we can and do have something to learn from liberal social democracies in terms of egalitarianism and the social welfare of society. 

Finally, you and your bush voting buddies have been unable to provide one, single, solitary example of a democratic, developed nation state that successfully employs the ideology of rightwing republican philosophy of economics and markets to acheive a stable, prosperous, and happy society. 

I can only assume no-zero-none examples exist, and that the rightwing extremist ideology you subscribe to is little more than mental masturbation with no real world examples demonstrating that it actually works.


----------



## Xenophon (May 13, 2009)

Captain Douchebag said:


> Rediculous partisan rantings removed.



Still waiting Francis, what was that one single, solitary example of a successful, prosperous developed democratic nation that follows the tenets of leftwing democratic ideology.

Well?


----------



## auditor0007 (May 13, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> The American system is broken and is in a lot more trouble financially than most European countries, or Australia and NZ....poor buggers....



The real problem involves more than current debt.  With all of these countries suffering from aging populations (European countries, along with Japan, are also suffering declining populations while they are aging), it doesn't include long term obligations that will significantly add to these deficits.  It is the long term obligations for healthcare and retirement funds that will bankrupt most of these countries.

Because government spending is a much lower percentage of GDP in the US, it is possible that the US will be able to fund most of its current programs through higher taxation.  However, that will come at a great cost to those who follow us, as their standard of living will be greatly reduced.

In countries where goverenment spending is already near or over 50% of GDP, this will be devastating as there will be no room for increased taxation to fund those programs.


----------



## auditor0007 (May 13, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > garyd said:
> ...



Again, the long term obligations will change these numbers drastically, and those countries that rely on so much government spending will eventually collapse completely.


----------



## auditor0007 (May 13, 2009)

Chris said:


> Red Dawn said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



Talk to us about how well the Europeans are doing twenty years from now when their GDP is half of what it is today in real dollars.


----------



## auditor0007 (May 13, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> No one could have anticipated that Germany would be stupid enough to declare war on the US.  While with regard to Europe, he made clear what he wanted to accomplish in Mein Kampf and England and France wrote it off as rhetoric.



Hitler didn't want to declare war on the US, but he was forced to as an agreement with Japan.  When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and the US declared war on Japan, it was just a formality that Germany must declare war on the US.

Either way, the US was close to getting involved even without the German declaration.


----------



## xotoxi (May 13, 2009)

editec said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...


 
I'm quite aware.

Most things that Mainecare does makes no sense and is arbitary.


----------



## Xenophon (May 13, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> Hitler didn't want to declare war on the US, but he was forced to as an agreement with Japan.  When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and the US declared war on Japan, it was just a formality that Germany must declare war on the US.
> 
> Either way, the US was close to getting involved even without the German declaration.


Sorry aud, this is not correct.

Since Japan was the agressor, germany was under no obligation to declare war on the USA.

The most likely reason he did it was frustration over the US naval campaign in the North Atlantic (the USA was doing things quite illeagally, in total violation of the laws of neutrality). 

To Hitler, it was simply a matter of formalizing what already in fact existed, a state of war.


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 13, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > childish. wanna play candyland while we're at it?
> ...



geezus grump i thought you had a little more on the ball,a little more going for ya....guess not.... so now you are going to tell us the the countries of Europe DONT coddle dictators then or now?.....


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 13, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> all western powers have coddled dictators including the US.
> 
> Its a desparate attempt to divert the thread.
> 
> ...


give us an example of a leftwing ideology.... thats successful....


----------



## Chris (May 13, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> Red Dawn said:
> 
> 
> > all western powers have coddled dictators including the US.
> ...



Ever other Western democracy has universal healthcare, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare.


----------



## elvis (May 13, 2009)

Chris said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Red Dawn said:
> ...



Then why don't you move there?


----------



## Chris (May 13, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



Move where?


----------



## elvis (May 13, 2009)

Chris said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



To one of the democracies that provide universal health care so you don't have to work for it?


----------



## Chris (May 13, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



I don't have health insurance.

I don't need it. I'm perfectly healthy.


----------



## elvis (May 13, 2009)

Chris said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



so when you break your arm, what happens?


----------



## Chris (May 13, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



I have never broken anything.


----------



## elvis (May 13, 2009)

Chris said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



I hadn't broken anything until I turned 32, chris.


----------



## Tech_Esq (May 13, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



Hey ROCKS for brains....why don't you take a reading comprehension class and then re-read my post. I was posting what's in Cass Sunstein's book. That is a synopsis of his thoughts, not mine.

I come down on the other side. I think people are smart enough to do their own business. It's your side that think people are too dumb. So, are you trying to say you agree with me and not Sunstein or are you completely and utterly flummoxed at this point and have no idea what to think (Which I think support's Sunstein's theory).


----------



## Tech_Esq (May 13, 2009)

Chris said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Good, then what do you care? And you are the statistic that Obama is whining about the 46 million uninsured. You say you don't need it, he says you're getting it whether you need it or not. 

Sit down, shut up. We'll tell you what is good for you. "We're from the government and we're here to help."


----------



## auditor0007 (May 13, 2009)

Chris said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



And when you become sick and need it, you won't be able to get it, and then you will cry about how unfair it is.  You and those like you are the reason health insurance is so expensive to begin with.  But you want national health insurance because you think it's free, yet it is not.  We all would pay for it.

Do you own a home Chris?  Since there is no fire, you don't need home owners insurance to cover fires, do you?  Since there is no rain, you don't need flood insurance either.  You have proven your intellect all to well.


----------



## auditor0007 (May 13, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Tech_Esq said:
> ...



Apparently, in Chris' case, he is not intelligent enough to grasp the complex idea that he should have health insurance in case he gets sick.  So he does need the government to make that decision for him.


----------



## Chris (May 13, 2009)

I love the personal attacks. They show that you are devoid of ideas.

We already have universal healthcare, just a really, really bad version of it. Everyone can be treated in the emergency room. We don't let people bleed to death on the street here. Not yet, anyway. So the rich get great healthcare, and the poor get no healthcare until they are at death's door. Does that sound like a good way to run a society? No, it doesn't. The ironic thing is that every other Western democracy has a single payer system, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare. Why? Because they don't have to pay liability lawyers, insurance companies, and Big Pharma. There are inherent cost savings with a single payer system. The Germans have had one since 1886!

With a single payer system you would still pick your doctor, and your doctor would still own his practice. There would just be one insurance company, and that would be the government.


----------



## Iriemon (May 13, 2009)

Chris said:


> I love the personal attacks. They show that you are devoid of ideas.
> 
> We already have universal healthcare, just a really, really bad version of it. Everyone can be treated in the emergency room. We don't let people bleed to death on the street here. Not yet, anyway. So the rich get great healthcare, and the poor get no healthcare until they are at death's door. Does that sound like a good way to run a society? No, it doesn't. The ironic thing is that every other Western democracy has a single payer system, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare. Why? Because they don't have to pay liability lawyers, insurance companies, and Big Pharma. There are inherent cost savings with a single payer system. The Germans have had one since 1886!
> 
> With a single payer system you would still pick your doctor, and your doctor would still own his practice. There would just be one insurance company, and that would be the government.



We actually do have a partial universal health care system with medicare.  The over 65 group are by far the most expensive medically.  So we're just talking about expanding (and hopefully improving) a system we already have.


----------



## elvis (May 13, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



republican depression?  remind us again fuckface, when did clinton, dodd, and emanuel  become republicans?

Glass-Steagall?  you know the act that was put in place in the 1930's?   repealed under CLINTON.  
Emanuel?  sat on board of fannie mae.

you stupid fuck.


----------



## Chris (May 13, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > I love the personal attacks. They show that you are devoid of ideas.
> ...



No partial about it. 

No one can be turned away from an emergency room.


----------



## elvis (May 13, 2009)

Chris said:


> I love the personal attacks. They show that you are devoid of ideas.
> 
> We already have universal healthcare, just a really, really bad version of it. Everyone can be treated in the emergency room. We don't let people bleed to death on the street here. Not yet, anyway. So the rich get great healthcare, and the poor get no healthcare until they are at death's door. Does that sound like a good way to run a society? No, it doesn't. The ironic thing is that every other Western democracy has a single payer system, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare. Why? Because they don't have to pay liability lawyers, insurance companies, and Big Pharma. There are inherent cost savings with a single payer system. The Germans have had one since 1886!
> 
> With a single payer system you would still pick your doctor, and your doctor would still own his practice. There would just be one insurance company, and that would be the government.



It's fun to personally attack parasites.  you freeloading piece of shit.


----------



## Chris (May 13, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > I love the personal attacks. They show that you are devoid of ideas.
> ...



Silly man.

I pay for my healthcare out of my pocket, and I pay for Medicare with my taxes.

Nice try, though.


----------



## elvis (May 13, 2009)

Chris said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



until you need surgery and run out of money, then the taxpayers bail out your lazy ass.


----------



## Red Dawn (May 13, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > I love the personal attacks. They show that you are devoid of ideas.
> ...




how is single payer universal healthcare "freeloading"?   Everyone pays for it with taxes.  

Are you aware of how it works?  just curious.


----------



## elvis (May 13, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



He is a freeloader because we don't have a single payer system and he refuses to be responsible and insure himself.  So if something happens, the taxpayers will pick up the bill (Medicaid)


----------



## Red Dawn (May 13, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Red Dawn said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



He said he works, and pays for insurance out of his pocket.


----------



## Seraega (May 13, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Red Dawn said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



Tough talk... do you know that coverage for an individual in NY starts at about $510 per person per month.  Take an average family of 4... yeah - you tell me who's got 2k a month just sitting around to pay for health insurance.  THAT is the problem.  If it was more reasonable like car insurance then I would agree that it'd be an easy fix, just make it mandatory and everyone can pay their $100 a month for coverage... but until the prices come WAY down that personal responsibility crap is just that.... crap.


----------



## Chris (May 13, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



So you want me to join a group that pools its money to pay from healthcare for all its members.

Socialist!


----------



## Red Dawn (May 13, 2009)

Seraega said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Red Dawn said:
> ...




man, buying healthcare on the free market is a nightmare.  You're lucky you don't have a pre-existing condition, other wise our wonderful free market healthcare system would blow you off. 


Jesus, no wonder rightiwng members of congress never volunteer to give up their government financed healthcare, in favor of shopping around for an individual policy.


----------



## Dr Grump (May 13, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Germany wasn't America's problem.  She was Europe's  If the French had marched into Rheinland when Hitler violated Versailles, Hitler would have had to withdraw.  Instead she did nothing and got conquered  in three weeks, and by some miracle, Hitler didn't slaughter the Brits at Dunquerque.  In comes the US and rescues France once again.
> 
> we got involved in Vietnam to bail out who?  The French AGAIN.



Japan wasn't Britain or Oz problem, but they still got involved...

Everybody helped out in Europe, including the US


----------



## Dr Grump (May 13, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> no, chrissie the commie said we should LEARN from Europe.  I was disputing that. and take your condescending attitude and shove it up your Euro ass.



You can dispute it all you like, but if you are thinking the rest of the world should learn from the US, you'd also be on the wrong track...and I ain't from Europe..


----------



## Dr Grump (May 13, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



No. Nobody sucked up to Mussolinie, Wilhelm was a monarchy, and the French hated Ho Chi Minh...terrible examples


----------



## Dr Grump (May 13, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> geezus grump i thought you had a little more on the ball,a little more going for ya....guess not.... so now you are going to tell us the the countries of Europe DONT coddle dictators then or now?.....



Geezus Harry, if you followed that convo that is exactly what I am saying to The King. Do try and keep up...


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 13, 2009)

Chris said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Red Dawn said:
> ...



Chris quite dancing around the question.....


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 13, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> Seraega said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



will they be able to blow you off in this universal system?.....for instance a guy has a serious existing condition,will he be covered?


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 13, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > geezus grump i thought you had a little more on the ball,a little more going for ya....guess not.... so now you are going to tell us the the countries of Europe DONT coddle dictators then or now?.....
> ...



so no country in Europe has ever coddled a dictator in the past or now?....i just wanna get this straight Grump before i have a good laugh....


----------



## Seraega (May 13, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> Red Dawn said:
> 
> 
> > Seraega said:
> ...



Asked and Answered - denying coverage for "pre-existing condition" will be illegal under the Obama plan.  

You seem to be confused though, there is no universal system on the table.  Obama is proposing a very weak patchwork of policies that is nothing for conservatives to be afraid of, he's probably also going to cave in on the public plan option, meaning that there will be no real competition to drive up the quality and drive down the price of the private plans.  Consider how it works in education.  Everyone has a baseline. The only reason you'd want a private school is if they're offering something better.  They have to work very hard to earn a students tuition, and in doing so they are constantly playing a check and balance game against the public system.  Without that public option in healthcare all he's really doing is throwing money into the already bloated health care CEOs' paycheck.


----------



## Gunny (May 14, 2009)

catzmeow said:


> World's Happiest Places
> 
> I find this study very interesting.  I've always been a free market capitalist, but find myself wondering if America's emphasis on work, above all else, is really working for us, or healthy.
> 
> ...



Socialist nations have the happiest people because they don't have to think for themselves.  They've got Big Brother to tell them what to think.

Obviously, it won't work for anyone that believes in thinking and doing for themselves.


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 14, 2009)

Seraega said:


> Asked and Answered - denying coverage for "pre-existing condition" will be illegal under the Obama plan.
> 
> You seem to be confused though, there is no universal system on the table.  Obama is proposing a very weak patchwork of policies that is nothing for conservatives to be afraid of, he's probably also going to cave in on the public plan option, meaning that there will be no real competition to drive up the quality and drive down the price of the private plans.  Consider how it works in education.  Everyone has a baseline. The only reason you'd want a private school is if they're offering something better.  They have to work very hard to earn a students tuition, and in doing so they are constantly playing a check and balance game against the public system.  Without that public option in healthcare all he's really doing is throwing money into the already bloated health care CEOs' paycheck.



ok because over in the other thread there are 2 people over there saying they can.....and they are saying that they will be able to pick and choose which diseases they deem affordable to cover.....just checkin.....


----------



## Gunny (May 14, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Germany wasn't America's problem.  She was Europe's  If the French had marched into Rheinland when Hitler violated Versailles, Hitler would have had to withdraw.  Instead she did nothing and got conquered  in three weeks, and by some miracle, Hitler didn't slaughter the Brits at Dunquerque.  In comes the US and rescues France once again.
> ...



Japan was VERY much Australia's problem, as it was a problem to the British colonial empire.


----------



## Gunny (May 14, 2009)

Seraega said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Red Dawn said:
> ...



Drive up quality while driving down the price?  Are you kidding?  HERE?  What we'll get is even more mediocrity when you take away the incentive to excel.  That's common sense the socialized medicine bunch refuses to address.  

We'll end up with the same thing we already have in our government.  The REAL thinkers want no part of it.  Lots of blame for little return.


----------



## elvis (May 14, 2009)

Seraega said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Red Dawn said:
> ...



chris has stated in the past that he does NOT buy insurance because he doesn't believe in it, not because he can't afford it.  
The comment was directed at Chris, no one else.


----------



## elvis (May 14, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > no, chrissie the commie said we should LEARN from Europe.  I was disputing that. and take your condescending attitude and shove it up your Euro ass.
> ...



I never made that claim.  chrissie made the claim WE should learn from europe.


----------



## elvis (May 14, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Red Dawn said:
> ...



no, he said he  said he pays the whole bill out of his pocket.  He said he didn't need it because he's "perfectly healthy".  he has said in other forums that he doesn't believe in health insurance, therefore he won't purchase it.


----------



## elvis (May 14, 2009)

Chris said:


> Red Dawn said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



Over the past 15 years, Europe has enjoyed a CONSISTENT unemployment rate in double digits.  
How?  Because their social programs hamper business.


----------



## JBeukema (May 14, 2009)

Look at how the Fed handles everything else. Only and idiot would want them handling their medical decisions


----------



## Gurdari (May 14, 2009)

Xenophon said:


> Captain Douchebag said:
> 
> 
> > Rediculous partisan rantings removed.
> ...



Isn't most of northern Europe as you describe? High literacy, low crime, high tax, high education, lots of vacation, healthy, peaceful...

I mean that link someone posted here about World ranking shas this in the top 15 for quality of life:


1 Norway 
2 Sweden 
3 
4 Belgium 
5  
6 
7 Iceland 
8 Netherlands 
9 
10 Finland 
11 Switzerland 
12 France 
13 UK 
14 Denmark 
15 Austria 


Now, they don't all have the same governments or tax systems or whatever, but they trend to the social democratic side with strong national programs, (excepting poor Britain during Thatcher's evisceration of public assets)


----------



## Iriemon (May 14, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Look at how the Fed handles everything else. Only and idiot would want them handling their medical decisions



Is someone really arguing that the Fed should handle health care?  Who's saying that?


----------



## Gurdari (May 14, 2009)

Gunny said:


> Drive up quality while driving down the price?  Are you kidding?  HERE?  What we'll get is even more mediocrity when you take away the incentive to excel.  That's common sense the socialized medicine bunch refuses to address.



So, are national, socialized programs creating mediocrity? Without the incentive to excel, you seem to imply comes from the competition of the free market?


That would imply a cause and effect relationship to anything handled in that way.
Like the Armed Forces, public education, policing...


----------



## elvis (May 14, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



the examples you gave paled in comparison to Hitler.  so no matter what, it isn't tied. none of the dictators were a threat to the US.
the French got their asses handed to them in Vietnam.  Maybe the lesson we should have learned from Vietnam is to stop rescuing the French.


----------



## Gurdari (May 14, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Look at how the Fed handles everything else. Only and idiot would want them handling their medical decisions
> ...



What does the Fed handle at the moment? Only smaller, simpler things than health care?


----------



## Iriemon (May 14, 2009)

Gurdari said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



The money supply mostly.  You were arguing against the Fed being involved in heath care.  I've never heard anyone suggest such a thing, so I was wondering what you are arguing about.


----------



## JBeukema (May 14, 2009)

Gurdari said:


> What does the Fed handle at the moment? Only smaller, simpler things than health care?



Money supply, social security, the tax code...

name one thing they're doing right


----------



## Nik (May 14, 2009)

Gunny said:


> Seraega said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



And where exactly is the incentive to excel in public health?  Where are the insurance companies that are competing with each other to lower rates?  Where are the insurance companies competing with each other to provide more and more coverage?


----------



## Nik (May 14, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Gurdari said:
> 
> 
> > What does the Fed handle at the moment? Only smaller, simpler things than health care?
> ...



FAA works pretty well.  As does the FBI and IRS.


----------



## JBeukema (May 14, 2009)

Nik said:


> FAA works pretty well.



Evidently not, if you've been paying attention to recent history



> As does the FBI


You men the American Stazi? Do you KNOW the history of the FBI?



> and IRS.



You leave in your own little world, don't you?


----------



## Nik (May 14, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > FAA works pretty well.
> ...



And which of those crashes were the FAA's fault?  They can't exactly prevent everything, but they do a damn good job.  



> > As does the FBI
> 
> 
> You men the American Stazi? Do you KNOW the history of the FBI?



Yes, Republicans have tried to abuse the power constantly, but overall it is still an effective organization. 



> > and IRS.
> 
> 
> 
> You leave in your own little world, don't you?




/pat you.


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 14, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Look at how the Fed handles everything else. Only and idiot would want them handling their medical decisions
> ...



some people give that impression.....so who will run it?


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 14, 2009)

Nik said:


> And where exactly is the incentive to excel in public health?  Where are the insurance companies that are competing with each other to lower rates?  Where are the insurance companies competing with each other to provide more and more coverage?


my wife is an epileptic,had uncontrolled seizures, Kaiser turned down EVERY test her doctor wanted to run to find out why and to see what can be done....so it was goodby shithole Kaiser......went to Blue Shield,they covered EVERY test her new Neurologist wanted without ANY interference.....so here we have two private ins. providers....one exceled compared to another...why?....i thought this kind of thing does not happen.....


----------



## Red Dawn (May 14, 2009)

Xenophon said:


> Captain Douchebag said:
> 
> 
> > Rediculous partisan rantings removed.
> ...





god damn you are dumb.   Is this an act?   

I can't believe you waited for this.   What do you think the thread was about?   


swedent
denmark
norway
finland
france
germany
netherlands
canada
switzerland
austria
new zealand



Where's your list of successful democratic rightwing countries?


----------



## Red Dawn (May 14, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> Red Dawn said:
> 
> 
> > Seraega said:
> ...





you must listen to a lot of rush limbaugh, because I can't believe you are so poorly informed. 

As far as I'm aware, all single payer universal systems in all developed countries cover pre-existing conditions.


----------



## Dr Grump (May 14, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> so no country in Europe has ever coddled a dictator in the past or now?....i just wanna get this straight Grump before i have a good laugh....




No, that's not what I'm saying. Read the thread...it ain't that hard to follow..


----------



## JBeukema (May 15, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> swedent
> denmark
> norway
> finland
> ...


Which one of those is supporting 109 Million non-tax-paying parasites?


----------



## mightypeon (May 15, 2009)

Where did you get that 109 million number from?


----------



## JBeukema (May 15, 2009)

mightypeon said:


> Where did you get that 109 million number from?





> With an estimated population of 109 million, it is the 11th most populous country



Although I suppose we should subtract the cartels...


----------



## Gunny (May 15, 2009)

Nik said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



How many sealybobo's can one message board take?  The Republicans this ... the Republicans that ... blah, blah, fucking blah.


----------



## Gunny (May 15, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> Xenophon said:
> 
> 
> > Captain Douchebag said:
> ...



Puh-lease.

Define successful.  I don't see what amounts to one set of balls amongst the lot of your "list."  Yet you wish to follow them down the drain to mediocrity.  

Whatever happened to you lefties belief in the right to choose?  It seems to change with each subject.  You leftists that want to force your ideas down everyone else's throats are NO better than anyone you accuse of trying to do the same.

And the US has been more successful than ANY of those nations until leftwingnuts that don't want to have to earn what they have just have it handed to them on a silver platter for existing got a voice.  I liked y'all MUCH better when that duct tape still covered that chasm under your noses.


----------



## editec (May 15, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Seraega said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...


 

Chris pays for insurance if he works.

He pays about 6% of his income into medicade.

Ergo he is NOT freeloading, he is merely an _as-yet_ unenrolled participant in the medicade system.


----------



## elvis (May 15, 2009)

editec said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Seraega said:
> ...



which is something you and I will have to pay for if he needs an operation.


----------



## sealybobo (May 15, 2009)

catzmeow said:


> World's Happiest Places
> 
> I find this study very interesting.  I've always been a free market capitalist, but find myself wondering if America's emphasis on work, above all else, is really working for us, or healthy.
> 
> ...



The free market capitalists have pushed too far.  It has produced too many poor people.  

That's the measure of a good political phylosophy, no?  Not how rich a few get but rather how well off are the middle class and how poor are the poor.

Our society is measured by how we treat the least of us, not the richest.  

They were talking about this on Thom Hartmann today.  He said, "denmark or one of those socialist countries (i forgot which one), but when their economy took a dump, they increased their cradle to grave social services.  So free school, free healthcare, etc.

So when people got sick, they didn't die.  And if the economy needed people to get re educated, they could do it because education is FREE!!!


----------



## elvis (May 15, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> > World's Happiest Places
> ...



yeah time for the anti-american pussies like you to take over.


----------



## sealybobo (May 15, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > catzmeow said:
> ...



Who's the pussy?  

The guy who risks his job and goes on strike when he sees his CEO is making $20 million a year while the company is asking him to take a pay cut.

Or pussies like YOU who just take the pay cut.  

It is people like you who is ruining what makes America great.  What makes America great?  A strong middle class, that's what.  

It wasn't free markets that gave our country such a strong middle class.  

And so while you call me anti American, you are the one who is actually anti American.  You just don't know it because you are a fucking retard.


----------



## elvis (May 15, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



you and chrissie should move to cuba until castro dies.  you yellow piece of shit.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 15, 2009)

Er..shouldn't it be "Socialist nations" instead of "socialistic"? 

I mean...it's "communist" nations...not communistic....wouldn't that be the rule for socialist nations as well????

If not, it should.

And boob boy, those poor workers who don't like their bosses can always quit and start their own businesses...where they will treat their own employees like royalty, I'm sure.

We all know what fine, upstanding men the early teamsters were!


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 15, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> Xenophon said:
> 
> 
> > Captain Douchebag said:
> ...


everyone one of these countries have a "RIGHT WING" balancing their LEFT WING,and they all are having social problems....and what is your meaning of A SUCCESSFUL society?


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 15, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Red Dawn said:
> ...



you know what RD...your an asshole....every fucking person that disagrees with your BS must listen to the fat guy or your a NEO-CON....a couple of your FUCKING leftist buddies in the other thread about this subject....DISAGREE with ya RD....i guess they listen to Rush to....


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 15, 2009)

Gunny said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...


yea and if you disagree with em....you obviously listen to Rush.....like they all do....


----------



## Agnapostate (May 17, 2009)

Gunny said:


> Socialist nations have the happiest people because they don't have to think for themselves.  They've got Big Brother to tell them what to think.
> 
> Obviously, it won't work for anyone that believes in thinking and doing for themselves.



Apart from social democratic capitalism not being "socialist" in nature, a distinction needs to be made between different varieties of "government intervention." It seems clear that Scandinavian "government intervention" is of a nature far different than government censorship, for instance, since its nature involves public welfare provision rather than some authoritarian imposition.



AllieBaba said:


> Er..shouldn't it be "Socialist nations" instead of "socialistic"?
> 
> I mean...it's "communist" nations...not communistic....wouldn't that be the rule for socialist nations as well????
> 
> If not, it should.



Considering that social democratic capitalism is not "socialist" in nature (socialism necessitates the collective ownership of the means of production), and that no nation-state has ever been "communist" (since even Marxist conceptions of communism involve a stateless, classless society), neither label is appropriate. 



AllieBaba said:


> And boob boy, those poor workers who don't like their bosses can always quit and start their own businesses...where they will treat their own employees like royalty, I'm sure.
> 
> We all know what fine, upstanding men the early teamsters were!



A similarly poor analysis. Considering the role of intergenerational transfers in aggregate capital accumulation and the limited social mobility that is the norm in the U.S., as well as various other factors, the realities of market concentration will prevent the quick and easy establishment of worker-owned firms. John Stuart Mill makes the point well in a letter. 



> Sir, I beg to enclose a subscription of [10 pounds] to aid, as far as such a sum can do it, in the struggle which the Co-operative Plate-Lock Makers of Wolverhampton are maintaining against unfair competition on the part of the masters in the trade. Against fair competition I have no desire to shield them. Co-operative production carried on by persons whose hearts are in the cause, and who are capable of the energy and self-denial always necessary in its early stages, ought to be able to hold its ground against private establishments and persons who have not those qualities had better not attempt it.
> 
> But to carry on business at a loss in order to ruin competitors is not fair competition. In such a contest, if prolonged, the competitors who have the smallest means, though they may have every other element of success, must necessarily be crushed through no fault of their own. Having the strongest sympathy with your vigorous attempt to make head against what in such a case may justly be called the tyranny of capital, I beg you to send me a dozen copies of your printed appeal, to assist me in making the case known to such persons as it may interest in your favour.



It's thus the case that the existence of more established capitalist firms, along with their access to an exceedingly greater amount of capital and resources, plays a role in preventing the development of worker-owned enterprises, regardless of the ability of the latter to utilize their own resources more efficiently (and effectively), than the capitalist firm. The role of inequivalent access to productive resources and financial capital prevents the worker-owned enterprises from engaging in fair competition with capitalist firms. This simply scores to illustrate Vanek's point that "[t]he capitalist economy is not a true market economy because in western capitalism, as in Soviet state capitalism, there is a tendency towards monopoly. Economic democracy tends toward a competitive market." The consolidation of the private ownership of the means of production by the financial class prevents fair market competition and maximization of efficiency.


----------



## Red Dawn (May 17, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> Red Dawn said:
> 
> 
> > Xenophon said:
> ...






Utter and complete bullshit spin!!

If Sweden was the 51st state, you would be calling them the most leftwing, liberal state in the nation BY FAR. 



We all know what a prosperous and successful democratic nation is.  Its self evident.   Please don't divert the thread.   

And please answer the question. 

Give me some examples of developed, prosperous democratic nations that follow the tenets of your rightwing republican conservative ideology. 


I'll check back


----------



## Red Dawn (May 17, 2009)

wait, i think I finally found a country that actually employs the rightwing republican principles of deregulation, and small government. 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0[/ame]


----------



## Old Rocks (May 17, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



Oh my, Elvis is showing his class again.


----------



## elvis (May 17, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Leave it to Old Cock to defend the poster who says "God damn america".  Why don't you join them, faggot?


----------



## Chris (May 17, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



He really is one sick fuck.


----------



## elvis (May 17, 2009)

Chris said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



I'm not the one who would just as soon piss in a veteran's face as give him the respect he deserves, you parasitic piece of shit.


----------



## Chris (May 17, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Thanks for proving my point.


----------



## Agnapostate (May 17, 2009)

Oh no! Another catfight?


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 18, 2009)

catzmeow said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > And you find people who say that poor people are the happiest people...
> ...



That is simply not the case.  You make assumptions based on a faulty belief that a socialized medicine would provide good healthcare to eveyone.  Not true as you can see below.  



> A grandmother performed her own tooth extractions in despair after being turned away by 12 dentists.
> 
> Elizabeth Green, 76, was in agony with two front teeth and after a fruitless search for an NHS practitioner, resorted to DIY.
> Her case is the latest of many to highlight the dwindling availability of NHS dental treatment.
> ...



Pensioner, 76, forced to pull out own teeth after 12 NHS dentists refuse to treat her | Mail Online


----------



## Agnapostate (May 18, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> That is simply not the case.  You make assumptions based on a faulty belief that a socialized medicine would provide good healthcare to eveyone.  Not true as you can see below.



You realize that that's an anecdotal example that's not a sufficient substitute for legitimate statistical data, right? That said, I'll forgive you if you can prove your claim that your avatar is a picture of you.


----------



## Dr Grump (May 18, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> [
> That is simply not the case.  You make assumptions based on a faulty belief that a socialized medicine would provide good healthcare to eveyone.  Not true as you can see below.



And for every example of 'socialised' medicine failing, I give you an example of 'capitalised' medicine failing. I'm sure there is a point in there somewhere...


----------



## editec (May 18, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...


 
Yes, and it is something he has ALREADY been paying for since he pays taxes DIRECTLY to that government HC insurance system.

Like I said he's paying 6% of his income OFF THE TOP, for his insurance even though he has yet to enroll in it.


----------



## editec (May 18, 2009)

> Give me some examples of developed, prosperous democratic nations that follow the tenets of your rightwing republican conservative ideology.


 
No problem, I can do that.

Here's a nation which allowed the fruits of anachro-capitalism to achive their final conclusive state of being.

It's that libertopian place marked in yellow. 

 A place where a man can be free and unencumbered by those annoying nanny-state socialists


----------



## Old Rocks (May 18, 2009)

Your picture did not come through. I assume, from the descripition that it is Somalia.


----------



## LaLinda75 (May 18, 2009)

*You can always move to Cuba or Venezuela or any number of practicing socialistic countries. Problem solved.*


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 18, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > That is simply not the case.  You make assumptions based on a faulty belief that a socialized medicine would provide good healthcare to eveyone.  Not true as you can see below.
> ...



Did you find "legitimate statistical data," in the post to which I was responding?

There are many news articles that attest to what I was driving at, such as:

"Nice refuses, on grounds of cost, to recommend some drugs for patients with advanced kidney cancer. The consultants, who include the directors of oncology at Britain&#8217;s two biggest cancer hospitals, the Royal Marsden in London and Christie hospital in Manchester, claim there is enough money in the NHS to pay for the drugs. "
Top doctors slam NHS drug rationing

There are many others along these lines. 

The upshot is this: if national healthcare is imposed to bring the US percentage of GDP (16%) down to those in, say Canada, where it is 10%, there is no alternative other than rationing of healthcare, and declining the best pharmaceuticals.

Americans live longer with respect to many forms of cancer than those in countries with socialized medicine, and over 80% of Americans are happy with their healthcare. 

If it's those without paid healthcare plans (everyone in the US has healthcare), then consider that it actually amounts to about 2.5- 2.6%. Reason to go national?

OK, you got me on the avatar. What can I say since my pic is in my profile.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 18, 2009)

Exactly.

There'a  a reason people from Canada come to the US for treatment.


----------



## Red Dawn (May 18, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> Exactly.
> 
> There'a  a reason people from Canada come to the US for treatment.




The problem isn't technology. 

The problem is access. 

We have probably the best technology and specialists in the world.  Rich people from around the world may come here for heart transplants, or procedures. 


The problem is, not every one has access to adequate, affordable healthcare here.   Because we don't cover all of our citizens with universal coverage.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 18, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Empty rhetoric, means nothing.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 18, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly.
> ...



Not everyone has access to it in Canada, either, where they have to wait for CHEMO and RADIATION treatment.


----------



## Tech_Esq (May 18, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly.
> ...



Right. It boils down to rationing one way or the other. In socialized systems, you're covered, if you can get the care. 

In the current system, you can get the care if you are covered.

Your challenge is to decide whether the people who tell you to are all covered, will effectively produce more treated people than the current one.

Because the current problem is access, you are looking at it as an access issue. It really isn't. The bottom line is whether you end up with a better treated (medically) populace by objective standards regardless of how it happens.

Since there are those who wish to change the current system, i think the burden is on them to prove that it will result in a better treated, healthier population with none of the draw backs apparent in the Canadian and British systems.

I think there are serious opportunities to do better than what we have, but there are also serious opportunities to do worse.


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 18, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> We all know what a prosperous and successful democratic nation is.  Its self evident.



yea the USA......


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 18, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



then i guess this will end in a draw....


----------



## Red Dawn (May 18, 2009)

Nobody in this country is proposing "socialize medicine". 

that's just what Boss Limbaugh ordered you to believe. 


If you want to debate this topic, you really should spend more than 30 seconds listening to the Limbaugh show, and at least learn what you're talking about. 

Socialized medicine is where the government owns the hospitals, and doctors, nurses, and medical professionals are government employees.    


There's not a single person in a position of authority in this country that has proposed that. 

I'm not sure why wingnuts are afraid of having the same government financed healthcare that John Boehner and Dick Cheney use, made available to all americans.    It seems to work well for Dick and the Boner.    I don't see them complaining about it.


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 19, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> Nobody in this country is proposing "socialize medicine".
> 
> that's just what Boss Limbaugh ordered you to believe.
> 
> ...



more Michael Moore shit.....do read and watch anyone else RD?......i hear Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi are a good read.....


----------



## Chris (May 19, 2009)

1. Canada's health care system is "socialized medicine."

Mythbusting Canadian Health Care -- Part I | OurFuture.org


----------

