=O That's really offensive to an entire continent. I doubt you reallt mean that.It's true. There's a reason why the US is the economic center of the world. Not for long.[QUOTE="Cpt-Obvious"]
[QUOTE="Pirate700"]
Because capitalism is what keeps us from the mediocrity of Europe.
Pirate700
Why americans are so paranoid towards socialism??
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Three letters:
G
O
P
[QUOTE="Pirate700"]It's true. There's a reason why the US is the economic center of the world. Not for long. You don't know that for sure.[QUOTE="Cpt-Obvious"] =O That's really offensive to an entire continent. I doubt you reallt mean that.
dramaybaz
Things change and any citizen of the USA who wants things to change can promote that change while staying in the country. :)The U.S. isn't based upon socialism, so the thought of changing it to that doesn't fly, instead why not move to a socialist country for those who want it?:)
topsemag55
lolThe U.S. isn't based upon socialism, so the thought of changing it to that doesn't fly, instead why not move to a socialist country for those who want it?:)
topsemag55
Do you realize how much economic theory has advanced since this country's founding?
There are many good arguments against various forms of socialism, but this has to be one of the worst.
America is socialist:
Medicare
Medicaid
Social SecurityWhile I wouldn't call the US socialist (really, I can't think of any pure socialist countries), but we certainly have socialist elements. What's really funny is that a lot of people will condemn socialist programs as a term out one side of their mouth and praise social security and medicare with the other.America is socialist:
Medicare
Medicaid
DroidPhysX
Because people tend to not even know what socialism means and classify literally everything they don't like as "socialist". HoolaHoopManI hate the New York Yankees, they are socialist.
[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]Because people tend to not even know what socialism means and classify literally everything they don't like as "socialist". SF_KiLLaMaNI hate the New York Yankees, they are socialist. If only everyone would hate the Yankees....
No, socialism isn't inherently evil, but I think it can move us a step backwards sometimes.
I'm fearful of a system that demonizes people who have been successful in an attempt to make everyone's life better.
I'm fearful of a system where the have-nots fully control the haves, instead of our current system where the have-nots somewhat control the haves.
I'll take my socialism in very small doses, thank you. Mixed with a lot more freedom.
[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]
[QUOTE="cybrcatter"]
The argument of capitalism vs socialism is silly at best.
Some markets are efficient if left alone.
Some markets are efficient with certain parameters in place.
In other circumstances, there exists complete market failures, and in those cases the government needs to either create a system where a working market can operate, or (rarely) take complete control.
Laissez-faire only exists in fantasy land.coolbeans90
This.
Seconded.
End thread before it becomes a 40 page long useless debate?
Because the American government has kept up propaganda that socialism is bad, even though Cuba (not an ideal socialist state) has better literacy rates, better health care, better education and care from the government. I seriously put it down to ignorance and propaganda. optiowThe U.S. school system is run by the government.
A decent portion of health care in the U.S. is run by the government (medicare, medicaid).
Also, what constitutes 'better' health-care?
Are we talking percentage of coverage, or quality of care?
The U.S. school system is run by the government.[QUOTE="optiow"]Because the American government has kept up propaganda that socialism is bad, even though Cuba (not an ideal socialist state) has better literacy rates, better health care, better education and care from the government. I seriously put it down to ignorance and propaganda. cybrcatter
A decent portion of health care in the U.S. is run by the government (medicare, medicaid).
Also, what constitutes 'better' health-care?
Are we talking percentage of coverage, or quality of care? Don't forget parks and roads! My god we're socialists, we must kill OURSELVES TO STOP THE SPREAD! X_X
While I sure as hell do not support welfare and to a degree Social Security, I don't see all these things as necessarily bad, I just have no use for them. The same party that lobbies for tax breaks, the faultlessness of capitalism, the sanctity of w/e BS, and allows to be twisted by ruthless executives with alot of cash to burn is the good 'ol GOP. Pretty much corporations have been given free reign to a degree because those with high executive ties to many companies have/had seats in the House and Senate and gave it to them.
The U.S. school system is run by the government.[QUOTE="optiow"]Because the American government has kept up propaganda that socialism is bad, even though Cuba (not an ideal socialist state) has better literacy rates, better health care, better education and care from the government. I seriously put it down to ignorance and propaganda. cybrcatter
A decent portion of health care in the U.S. is run by the government (medicare, medicaid).
Also, what constitutes 'better' health-care?
Are we talking percentage of coverage, or quality of care?
Health care is ranked either by Life expectancy or by infantile deaths per 10,000. In both ways Im pretty sure Cuba (and much of the rest of the the developed western world) beats America.
The U.S. school system is run by the government.[QUOTE="optiow"]Because the American government has kept up propaganda that socialism is bad, even though Cuba (not an ideal socialist state) has better literacy rates, better health care, better education and care from the government. I seriously put it down to ignorance and propaganda. cybrcatter
A decent portion of health care in the U.S. is run by the government (medicare, medicaid).
Also, what constitutes 'better' health-care?
Are we talking percentage of coverage, or quality of care?
And the education provided by the US government is pathetic at best.
Cuba has the second highest patient-doctor rating in the world, and health care is provided for every citizen for free. Since Castro took power, disease and malnutrition has been eliminated, and AIDS is only one sixth as common as it is in the USA. And despite being under a trade embargo by the USA, the life expectancy of the Cuban people is less than a year less than those in the worlds greatest superpower.
So I have a good respect for the Cuban socialist health care system.
If you want more reading, I can provide good books on the subject.
The U.S. school system is run by the government.[QUOTE="cybrcatter"]
[QUOTE="optiow"]Because the American government has kept up propaganda that socialism is bad, even though Cuba (not an ideal socialist state) has better literacy rates, better health care, better education and care from the government. I seriously put it down to ignorance and propaganda. cobrax55
A decent portion of health care in the U.S. is run by the government (medicare, medicaid).
Also, what constitutes 'better' health-care?
Are we talking percentage of coverage, or quality of care?
Health care is ranked either by Life expectancy or by infantile deaths per 10,000. In both ways Im pretty sure Cuba (and much of the rest of the the developed western world) beats America.
If making conclusions from data was this easy, I'd be out of a job.Health care is not the sole variable in life expectancy. There are cultural habits, such as eating too much, that contribute to it as well.
I am good with capitalism, we do not need socialism in the US. CMFreezy
This is true, but since I've never heard of any U.S. elected official ever say they want to replace the capitalist system with a socialist system (or implement any policy that suggests that), I'm not sure what all the paranoia is about.
The U.S. school system is run by the government.[QUOTE="cybrcatter"]
[QUOTE="optiow"]Because the American government has kept up propaganda that socialism is bad, even though Cuba (not an ideal socialist state) has better literacy rates, better health care, better education and care from the government. I seriously put it down to ignorance and propaganda. optiow
A decent portion of health care in the U.S. is run by the government (medicare, medicaid).
Also, what constitutes 'better' health-care?
Are we talking percentage of coverage, or quality of care?
And the education provided by the US government is pathetic at best.
Cuba has the second highest patient-doctor rating in the world, and health care is provided for every citizen for free. Since Castro took power, disease and malnutrition has been eliminated, and AIDS is only one sixth as common as it is in the USA. And despite being under a trade embargo by the USA, the life expectancy of the Cuban people is less than a year less than those in the worlds greatest superpower.
So I have a good respect for the Cuban socialist health care system.
If you want more reading, I can provide good books on the subject.
I never said the education was good, I was stating that it's run by our government as well.Personally, I think more money should be allocated to the school systems, along with a hard look at how it works.
[QUOTE="cobrax55"]
[QUOTE="cybrcatter"] The U.S. school system is run by the government.
A decent portion of health care in the U.S. is run by the government (medicare, medicaid).
Also, what constitutes 'better' health-care?
Are we talking percentage of coverage, or quality of care?cybrcatter
Health care is ranked either by Life expectancy or by infantile deaths per 10,000. In both ways Im pretty sure Cuba (and much of the rest of the the developed western world) beats America.
If making conclusions from data was this easy, I'd be out of a job.Health care is not the sole variable in life expectancy. There are cultural habits, such as eating too much, that contribute to it as well.
obviously. But Health care encompases everything, but Life expactancy is really the only metric that can be used to evaluate every aspect of health at once. Obviously there are cultural differences that contribute heavily especially in certain cases (alcohol being the obious) But Life expectancy is still far and beyond the only metric that can look at the health of individuals across a country.
If making conclusions from data was this easy, I'd be out of a job.[QUOTE="cybrcatter"]
[QUOTE="cobrax55"]
Health care is ranked either by Life expectancy or by infantile deaths per 10,000. In both ways Im pretty sure Cuba (and much of the rest of the the developed western world) beats America.
cobrax55
Health care is not the sole variable in life expectancy. There are cultural habits, such as eating too much, that contribute to it as well.
obviously. But Health care encompases everything, but Life expactancy is really the only metric that can be used to evaluate every aspect of health at once. Obviously there are cultural differences that contribute heavily especially in certain cases (alcohol being the obious) But Life expectancy is still far and beyond the only metric that can look at the health of individuals across a country.
Even though this is not my area of expertise, I''m going to go out on a limb and say that life expectancy by itself is a not a good indicator of health care quality. Considering that many leading causes of death in the US are heavily influenced by our lifestyIes, I'd say it's a poor indicator until these variables are taken into consideration.[QUOTE="cobrax55"]
[QUOTE="cybrcatter"] If making conclusions from data was this easy, I'd be out of a job.
Health care is not the sole variable in life expectancy. There are cultural habits, such as eating too much, that contribute to it as well.cybrcatter
obviously. But Health care encompases everything, but Life expactancy is really the only metric that can be used to evaluate every aspect of health at once. Obviously there are cultural differences that contribute heavily especially in certain cases (alcohol being the obious) But Life expectancy is still far and beyond the only metric that can look at the health of individuals across a country.
Even though this is not my area of expertise, I''m going to go out on a limb and say that life expectancy by itself is a not a good indicator of health care quality. Considering that many leading causes of death in the US are heavily influenced by our lifestyIes, I'd say it's a poor indicator until these variables are taken into consideration.Its true, life****differences do differ greatly, but they ultimatly end up counteracting one another. For example, Obiesity rates are obviously very high in America, and bring down life expectancy considerably. But on the otherhand we have comparitivly very few smokers; and alcohol abuse isnt as serious of a problem as it might be in some other parts of the world.
Life expectancy ends up being the metric used because it encompasses everything, and is really the only way to compare realisticlly. Obviously it takes into account a huge amount of factors outside of the quality of service you get in a hospitol, but in the end its really life expectancy that ends up being the only metric that matters.
[QUOTE="cobrax55"]
[QUOTE="cybrcatter"] The U.S. school system is run by the government.
A decent portion of health care in the U.S. is run by the government (medicare, medicaid).
Also, what constitutes 'better' health-care?
Are we talking percentage of coverage, or quality of care?cybrcatter
Health care is ranked either by Life expectancy or by infantile deaths per 10,000. In both ways Im pretty sure Cuba (and much of the rest of the the developed western world) beats America.
If making conclusions from data was this easy, I'd be out of a job.Health care is not the sole variable in life expectancy. There are cultural habits, such as eating too much, that contribute to it as well.
Touching upon that point, the average life-expectancy of people living in the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico is longer than in Cuba or the U.S. Moreover, Hispanics living in the U.S. have a longer than average life-expectancy by a few years. (surpassing those living in Cuba) There are other factors in play which makes the average life-expectancy an inadequate metric to measure, let alone compare, the performance of health-care systems. Too many factors are assumed constant.
[QUOTE="BMD004"]
[QUOTE="With-Hatred"]So ur just making things up?
I looked it up, it's actually about the same as the U.S.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Self-inflicted_injuries_world_map_-_Death_-_WHO2004.svg
Enid_Green
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OECD_countries_by_suicide_rate
Finland #5
Sweeden #13
lol Mexico is at the bottom. We should totally copy whatever government policies they're using. Obviously it's working really well for them.
Guys, the whole suicide rate thing has nothing to do with the government and everything to do with the climate. Lack of sunlight makes people depressed. It is what it is.
Because socialism makes everybody mediocre. It inhibits growth, success, innovation, individuality, and liberty. That's the bottom line. A socialist system can't be instituted and enforced without crippllng all of those things.
i'm a an american with some socialist leanings
so im not parinoid at all
Because people are afraid of strong centralized government being ineffiecent and corrupt. They probably have good reason for that as well. However, it seems the only alternative is to give unrestrained power to greedy corporations.
The United States of America was founded on the principles of individual liberty, life, the pursuit of happiness, and most importantly, private property. "Socialism" according to Karl Marx is a transition point in which the redistribution of private property and wealth is needed to equalize the classes, once the environment is right, the proletariat sets up a dictatorship or something that is communism.
To get to the point, Americans like me are paranoid of socialism because it goes against what this country was founded upon (private property, pursuit of happiness, individual liberty) plus it simply doesn't work. Look at the recent riots in Europe that have been going on during the past few months, more proof socialism does not work. Theres a reason why the USA is the most economic power in human history...
halo1399
Lawl, I'm glad you;ve done your due dilligence and properlyfamiliarized yourself with the works of Karl Marx before you went out and started bashing him. One, Marx said that communism is the abolition of private property, but he never meant that no one would properly own anything. Marx was a man who valued his possessions, and if anything Marx's vision of communism was one in which the means of production would not be owned by anyone. If there is one phrase which best sums up Marx's philosophy it is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Basically Marx envisioned a culture where everyone could pursue a craft they enjoyed, if that was baking then they became a baker, if was teaching a teacher. The only difference is that None of them would charge for their services, they would give freely as everyone else would.
Two, Marx did not espouse the form of communism you are describing. Marx called it crude communsim and said that, "this type of communism-since it negates the personality of man in every sphere-is but the logical expression of private property to a state of universal prostitution with the community."
Three, a country that has protests isn't working, where is your logic behind that? The United States have been having multiple protests recently, I suppose that means capitalism doesn't work? Same goes for government, you take specific examples of communist governments that failed economically and say communism doesn't work, not even going into the fact that you're not even examinign the reasons for the collapses of those governments. Well two can play at that game, Oh look, Pinochet was a failed dictator who supported a capitalist economy and his government failed, I guess that means capitalism everywhere is bound to fail. Or let's look at successes, how much of the U.S.'s debt does China own? If you count the U.S. as a success financially then you must also count China as a success, do they necessarily cancel each other out?
Finally, communism does not go against what this country was founded on, this country was founded on an idea of equal opportunity for all. Communism's goal is not to impeded that, communism's goal is to lead us to the next step in the process of social evolution and to bring us closer to the realization of a truly egalitarian society, there's nothing inherent to that which goes against the ideals this country was founded on.
This:
+ sheep mentality
[QUOTE="halo1399"]
The United States of America was founded on the principles of individual liberty, life, the pursuit of happiness, and most importantly, private property. "Socialism" according to Karl Marx is a transition point in which the redistribution of private property and wealth is needed to equalize the classes, once the environment is right, the proletariat sets up a dictatorship or something that is communism.
To get to the point, Americans like me are paranoid of socialism because it goes against what this country was founded upon (private property, pursuit of happiness, individual liberty) plus it simply doesn't work. Look at the recent riots in Europe that have been going on during the past few months, more proof socialism does not work. Theres a reason why the USA is the most economic power in human history...
theone86
Lawl, I'm glad you;ve done your due dilligence and properlyfamiliarized yourself with the works of Karl Marx before you went out and started bashing him. One, Marx said that communism is the abolition of private property, but he never meant that no one would properly own anything. Marx was a man who valued his possessions, and if anything Marx's vision of communism was one in which the means of production would not be owned by anyone. If there is one phrase which best sums up Marx's philosophy it is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Basically Marx envisioned a culture where everyone could pursue a craft they enjoyed, if that was baking then they became a baker, if was teaching a teacher. The only difference is that None of them would charge for their services, they would give freely as everyone else would.
Two, Marx did not espouse the form of communism you are describing. Marx called it crude communsim and said that, "this type of communism-since it negates the personality of man in every sphere-is but the logical expression of private property to a state of universal prostitution with the community."
Three, a country that has protests isn't working, where is your logic behind that? The United States have been having multiple protests recently, I suppose that means capitalism doesn't work? Same goes for government, you take specific examples of communist governments that failed economically and say communism doesn't work, not even going into the fact that you're not even examinign the reasons for the collapses of those governments. Well two can play at that game, Oh look, Pinochet was a failed dictator who supported a capitalist economy and his government failed, I guess that means capitalism everywhere is bound to fail. Or let's look at successes, how much of the U.S.'s debt does China own? If you count the U.S. as a success financially then you must also count China as a success, do they necessarily cancel each other out?
Finally, communism does not go against what this country was founded on, this country was founded on an idea of equal opportunity for all. Communism's goal is not to impeded that, communism's goal is to lead us to the next step in the process of social evolution and to bring us closer to the realization of a truly egalitarian society, there's nothing inherent to that which goes against the ideals this country was founded on.
Plus most american socialists aren't Marxists, and communism isn't the same as socialism. So even if Marx has everything ass-backwards (which I don't think he does), that isn't really saying much for the state of socialism anyhow.
Because socialism makes everybody mediocre. It inhibits growth, success, innovation, individuality, and liberty. That's the bottom line. A socialist system can't be instituted and enforced without crippllng all of those things.
Communistik
I think you might have socialism confused with capitalism. I'd just like to address this myth that capitalism encourages technology once and for all. There is one thing that matters in capitalism: profits. That is the god of capitalism, that is the raison d'etre, the moticating force. Based on this rule we can gather what capitalism encourages, which is anything that generates profits. The reason for the myth that capitalism encourages innovation is that it very often appears so, but it's really a case of wagon pushing the mule type logic. The truth is that innovation drives capitalism, and so to a degree capitalism drives innovation, but only so much as to keep its own momentum. Innovation is the gasoline, capitalism is the car, and capitalism only fills up enough to get it into the next town on fumes.
One of the most blatant examples of this is the electric car. This was a leap forward in technology, it was the evolution of something that Americans use possibly more than any other nation on earth, and it was market ready like twenty years ago. We are just now starting to see cities install electric plug-ins at gas stations, we are just now starting to see electric cars being marketed by Detroit, and they're charging up the nose for them. Detroit, the oil companies, and countless lobbies have held this technology back specifically because it impedes (can you guess?) profits. Specifically, the oil industry has a stranglehold on this country through our dependence on gas, and cars that run on electricity and could be fueled by solar charging stations would seriously hinder their profits, which is why they need to go to Detroit and Washington and keep these cars from being marketed to consumers at an affordable price.
Let's go somewhere else, hemp. Before the turn of the nineteenth century hemp was being called the product of the future. A gentleman had just come up with a machine that reduced the need for a labor-intensive manufacturing process and engineering journals thought he would be a millionare before long. Hemp is a cheaper and more effective alternative to many of the products they relied on back then (fabric, paper, rope), and since the industrial revolution its uses have expanded to products we use today (synthetics, building supplies). Using hemp in many of our everyday products would be an innovative stpe forward, but we couldn't do it back then because it stood in the way of certain people's profits. Among the figures who donated money to efforts to criminalize cannabis were newspaper magnate and logging baron William Randolph Hearst, textile manufacturers DuPont, and brewry owners Budweiser. Cannabis and hemp stood in the way of their profits, so to control the market they criminalized cannabis, and along with it the ability to grow hemp commercially. Profits hindered innovation.
Yet another example, did you know the original inventors of the computer had envisioned giving them to people for free? They thought they could put a computer in the home of every American for nothing, and do you want to know why? Infinite redundancy. The proces of manufacturing a computer chip is one where the product can continuously be stamped out by machines all day long, with no variation in the product itself. Even more simplistic than that is the operating system. An OS has absolutely zero material involved in its creation, it is completely the product of labor.A programmer can make an OS and then make an infinite number of copies of that OS for absolutely zero cost, it's like making copies on a copy machine without the paper or ink or toner. Why aren't we all working on free OSs? Because Bill Gates commidified them. Here is an idea whose originator had the dream of handing his product out for free in the interest of bringing technology to everyone in America who wanted it, and now forty years later one of the richest men in the world is a man who took that product and slapped a price tag on it.
Let's go to yet another example, this time of capitalism moving technology forward at a large pace insteadof hindering it. Do you know why your medical costs are so high? For one, it's in part because of technology. Say there's an ailment, and it's very elusive to normal medical scanners. Someone has come up with a machine that can detect this ailment, and this machine costs $50,000. All the major hospitals buy one because they need to keep up with each other, and right away premiums are going to rise. However, this ailment is very uncommon. Assuming each time someone with this ailment comes in the hospital makes a $100 dollar profit, it would take 500 visits to pay for this machine. Let's say the average number of cases of this ailment are two per year, the hospital would never pay this machine off. Therefore, they must find a way to convince other patients that they need to use this machine in order to pay off the cost of the machine itself. In the process of doing so they popularize the use of the machine, and byt he time they're done paying it off its use has become so common that they continue the practice of getting patients to use it, and continue to run a profit.
Technology moves at the pace that capitalism wants it to move at, it moves at the pace of profits. If innovation brings profits then capitalism dirves innovation, if innovation hampers profits then capitalism hampers innovation. Furthermore, there's nothing to say that innovation cannot take place in a communist society. In a communist society, technological innovation would be goal driven, not profit driven. If there is a need for a technology then people will aspire to fill that need. If someone sees that there are possibilites for cleaner forms of transportation then they devise such means, same with cleaner means of energy, better forms of communication, anything you can imagine. There is nothing saying a communist society cannot achieve this.
[QUOTE="theone86"]
[QUOTE="halo1399"]
The United States of America was founded on the principles of individual liberty, life, the pursuit of happiness, and most importantly, private property. "Socialism" according to Karl Marx is a transition point in which the redistribution of private property and wealth is needed to equalize the classes, once the environment is right, the proletariat sets up a dictatorship or something that is communism.
To get to the point, Americans like me are paranoid of socialism because it goes against what this country was founded upon (private property, pursuit of happiness, individual liberty) plus it simply doesn't work. Look at the recent riots in Europe that have been going on during the past few months, more proof socialism does not work. Theres a reason why the USA is the most economic power in human history...
_BlueDuck_
Lawl, I'm glad you;ve done your due dilligence and properlyfamiliarized yourself with the works of Karl Marx before you went out and started bashing him. One, Marx said that communism is the abolition of private property, but he never meant that no one would properly own anything. Marx was a man who valued his possessions, and if anything Marx's vision of communism was one in which the means of production would not be owned by anyone. If there is one phrase which best sums up Marx's philosophy it is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Basically Marx envisioned a culture where everyone could pursue a craft they enjoyed, if that was baking then they became a baker, if was teaching a teacher. The only difference is that None of them would charge for their services, they would give freely as everyone else would.
Two, Marx did not espouse the form of communism you are describing. Marx called it crude communsim and said that, "this type of communism-since it negates the personality of man in every sphere-is but the logical expression of private property to a state of universal prostitution with the community."
Three, a country that has protests isn't working, where is your logic behind that? The United States have been having multiple protests recently, I suppose that means capitalism doesn't work? Same goes for government, you take specific examples of communist governments that failed economically and say communism doesn't work, not even going into the fact that you're not even examinign the reasons for the collapses of those governments. Well two can play at that game, Oh look, Pinochet was a failed dictator who supported a capitalist economy and his government failed, I guess that means capitalism everywhere is bound to fail. Or let's look at successes, how much of the U.S.'s debt does China own? If you count the U.S. as a success financially then you must also count China as a success, do they necessarily cancel each other out?
Finally, communism does not go against what this country was founded on, this country was founded on an idea of equal opportunity for all. Communism's goal is not to impeded that, communism's goal is to lead us to the next step in the process of social evolution and to bring us closer to the realization of a truly egalitarian society, there's nothing inherent to that which goes against the ideals this country was founded on.
Plus most american socialists aren't Marxists, and communism isn't the same as socialism. So even if Marx has everything ass-backwards (which I don't think he does), that isn't really saying much for the state of socialism anyhow.
I wish I could remember Marx's quote verbatim, he said it more elegantly than me, but it was something along the lines of [to Engels] "you and I will not live to see a communist society. the future is for those of its own time, and that time is not ours." I don't think Marx thought all that dogmatically, at least not about how people would read his works in the future. I think, if anything, Marx took Hegel's ideas to heart, and where Hegel said that the progression of society and history would reach a pinnacle Marx thought it would never end. I think that's really the core of Marx's views, that all of history including the present is a progression, and in his view transferring to communism is merely the next stage in that progression as was transferring from feudalism to capitalism.
simply put, the Old Guard (those who lived during the Cold War) are still in charge for the most part.
And the Old Guard had kids, and these kids vote like their parents and think like their parents, and they are filling in the gaps as well for the old Old Guard.
Its sad, but its going to be another generation or two before we see the change we need in the US. Its going to be business as usual for the next 30-50 years.
Obama would have been a great president maybe 20 years from now, but the US is too set in its ways at the moment to recognize his genius
Always surprised to see the socialists espousing control over another person's life...
This is, simply, why socialism is undesirable.
theone86
Electric cars were most certainly not marketable twenty years ago. Battery technology simply was unable to compete with gasoline in either energy storage capacity or manufacturing costs. The effort put forth by GM in the EV1 a decade ago was a financial disaster. The main reason that it was pulled was due to the fact that battery expenses didn't meet expectations. Even now, the push for electric cars is viable greatly due to external subsidization. (namely government incentives)
[QUOTE="Pirate700"]
Because capitalism is what keeps us from the mediocrity of Europe.
Sagem28
I'm sorry, what ? I couldn't hear you behind all my cheap health care benefits.
he does have a point
I watch films set in Europeand I cant help but think "Wow...is that how/where they live?"
I watch films set in the US and I think "Wow, that is a nice house"
I mean I just watched Let the Right One In and, forgive me for jumping to conclusions, but are those living conditions standard for Norwegians? I look at Tokyo apartments versus San Francisco apartments and think "Damn...Tokyo sucks"
[QUOTE="Sagem28"]
[QUOTE="Pirate700"]
Because capitalism is what keeps us from the mediocrity of Europe.
mrbojangles25
I'm sorry, what ? I couldn't hear you behind all my cheap health care benefits.
he does have a point
I watch films set in Europeand I cant help but think "Wow...is that how/where they live?"
I watch films set in the US and I think "Wow, that is a nice house"
I mean I just watched Let the Right One In and, forgive me for jumping to conclusions, but are those living conditions standard for Norwegians? I look at Tokyo apartments versus San Francisco apartments and think "Damn...Tokyo sucks"
Have you actually been to Europe ? Because A movie can't show you everything.
I've been to the states two times now, the only big difference is the large amount of skyscrapers in the US.
Every country has "bad" neighbourhoods and nice one's.
As far as living standards go I doubt there are alot of countries who have it better (not trying to be smug).
I pay 240€ a year for full health care. in return the government pays 85% of my expenses. Heck, if your unemployed you actually get a minimum wage without question over here, however you have to do a monthly visit to a social service bureau to show you are actively searching for work.
It just grinds my gears how some Americans always have the "USA rocks, the rest sucks" attitude.
[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]
[QUOTE="Sagem28"]
I'm sorry, what ? I couldn't hear you behind all my cheap health care benefits.
Sagem28
he does have a point
I watch films set in Europeand I cant help but think "Wow...is that how/where they live?"
I watch films set in the US and I think "Wow, that is a nice house"
I mean I just watched Let the Right One In and, forgive me for jumping to conclusions, but are those living conditions standard for Norwegians? I look at Tokyo apartments versus San Francisco apartments and think "Damn...Tokyo sucks"
Have you actually been to Europe ? Because A movie can't show you everything.
I've been to the states two times now, the only big difference is the large amount of skyscrapers in the US.
Every country has "bad" neighbourhoods and nice one's.
As far as living standards go I doubt there are alot of countries who have it better (not trying to be smug).
I pay 240€ a year for full health care. in return the government pays 85% of my expenses. Heck, if your unemployed you actually get a minimum wage without question over here, however you have to do a monthly visit to a social service bureau to show you are actively searching for work.
It just grinds my gears how some Americans always have the "USA rocks, the rest sucks" attitude.
oh I have been to Europe about ten times in my life (one of the perks of havign a flight attendent mom :D ).
I was playing Devil's Advocate, btw. I know Europe has many things that I personally envy, and as far as living standards go in Western Europe they easily match the US's for the most part, if not exceed, but are likely less in some respects too.
Its just in California I can drive through any number of neighborhoods and see nice houses and everything is spread out and to get one of those houses is realistic provided you work hard.
I just havent seen neighborhoods like that in Europe that a middle ****person could afford or even pursue. Im likely incorrect though.
[QUOTE="Sagem28"]
[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]
he does have a point
I watch films set in Europeand I cant help but think "Wow...is that how/where they live?"
I watch films set in the US and I think "Wow, that is a nice house"
I mean I just watched Let the Right One In and, forgive me for jumping to conclusions, but are those living conditions standard for Norwegians? I look at Tokyo apartments versus San Francisco apartments and think "Damn...Tokyo sucks"
mrbojangles25
Have you actually been to Europe ? Because A movie can't show you everything.
I've been to the states two times now, the only big difference is the large amount of skyscrapers in the US.
Every country has "bad" neighbourhoods and nice one's.
As far as living standards go I doubt there are alot of countries who have it better (not trying to be smug).
I pay 240€ a year for full health care. in return the government pays 85% of my expenses. Heck, if your unemployed you actually get a minimum wage without question over here, however you have to do a monthly visit to a social service bureau to show you are actively searching for work.
It just grinds my gears how some Americans always have the "USA rocks, the rest sucks" attitude.
oh I have been to Europe about ten times in my life (one of the perks of havign a flight attendent mom :D ).
I was playing Devil's Advocate, btw. I know Europe has many things that I personally envy, and as far as living standards go in Western Europe they easily match the US's for the most part, if not exceed, but are likely less in some respects too.
Its just in California I can drive through any number of neighborhoods and see nice houses and everything is spread out and to get one of those houses is realistic provided you work hard.
I just havent seen neighborhoods like that in Europe that a middle ****person could afford or even pursue. Im likely incorrect though.
I've been to California and I'll agree with you on that one.
I saw some very nice neighborhoods in L.A . When I went to NY though....that was a whole different story.
We also have a structural problem over here, everything is build so tightly together. There hardly is any building ground anymore, so people often buy old houses which they renovate instead of breaking it down and building a new modern one.
[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]
[QUOTE="Sagem28"]
Have you actually been to Europe ? Because A movie can't show you everything.
I've been to the states two times now, the only big difference is the large amount of skyscrapers in the US.
Every country has "bad" neighbourhoods and nice one's.As far as living standards go I doubt there are alot of countries who have it better (not trying to be smug).
I pay 240€ a year for full health care. in return the government pays 85% of my expenses. Heck, if your unemployed you actually get a minimum wage without question over here, however you have to do a monthly visit to a social service bureau to show you are actively searching for work.It just grinds my gears how some Americans always have the "USA rocks, the rest sucks" attitude.
Sagem28
oh I have been to Europe about ten times in my life (one of the perks of havign a flight attendent mom :D ).
I was playing Devil's Advocate, btw. I know Europe has many things that I personally envy, and as far as living standards go in Western Europe they easily match the US's for the most part, if not exceed, but are likely less in some respects too.
Its just in California I can drive through any number of neighborhoods and see nice houses and everything is spread out and to get one of those houses is realistic provided you work hard.
I just havent seen neighborhoods like that in Europe that a middle ****person could afford or even pursue. Im likely incorrect though.
We also have a structural problem over here, everything is build so tightly together. There hardly is any building ground anymore, so people often buy old houses which they renovate instead of breaking it down and building a new modern one.
yeah but personally I sort of like that.
in my current town, the oldest house is like 120 years old. Its even been given "historical status" lol.
In Europe, I saw many restored houses that were 150+ years old, usually a lot more due to stone/brick construction. Theyre so beautiful and just ooze **** but that also makes them very expensive.
Also, a lot of European cities were designed before the car and mass transit lol. Hard to navigate for us foreigners :P
As far as close together, that goes both ways; I enjoyed being able to get from Barcelona, Spain to Paris, France in a matter of 3 or so hours...in CA, it takes me close to four hours to get to LA to visit my sister, and four hours to go to San Francisco to visit my folks. Conversely, I can drive that distance and not come across a large town for quite some time, everything is so spread out.
I guess what I am trying to say is that nothing is better, just different, and the least we can do is learn from eachother. Lord knows I want some stuff you "get' from your government; I work my ass off, I deserve healthcare dammit
[QUOTE="Sagem28"]
[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]
oh I have been to Europe about ten times in my life (one of the perks of havign a flight attendent mom :D ).
I was playing Devil's Advocate, btw. I know Europe has many things that I personally envy, and as far as living standards go in Western Europe they easily match the US's for the most part, if not exceed, but are likely less in some respects too.
Its just in California I can drive through any number of neighborhoods and see nice houses and everything is spread out and to get one of those houses is realistic provided you work hard.
I just havent seen neighborhoods like that in Europe that a middle ****person could afford or even pursue. Im likely incorrect though.
mrbojangles25
We also have a structural problem over here, everything is build so tightly together. There hardly is any building ground anymore, so people often buy old houses which they renovate instead of breaking it down and building a new modern one.
I guess what I am trying to say is that nothing is better, just different, and the least we can do is learn from eachother.
I raise my beer to you sir, well said!
I actually did a car trip from San Fransisco to L.A . I can honestly say my mind was blown, the huge distance and the amazing nature between them.
We made a stop at Big Bear, that was the highlight of my trip. A community up in the mountains, I had some great conversations with a few Americans in a little bar there. One was a democrat and one Republican, interesting talk.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment