What I mean is that a small group of people control the majority of the wealth in the country and, because they wish to keep it this way, use part of this wealth to sway those in political power (these two come mostly from the same social circles, by the way) and to control the political narrative via think-tanks and pundits. This is to the detriment of the majority of people in the country but this larger group is only considered in so far as it can be a resource or tool to maintain power.
I'm not proposing anarchy. Rather, I am for control being put back into the hands of the people. Nationalism, anti-intellectualism, classism/racism etc are used to keep the people from realising that they are harmed by the status quo and thus to keep them from overthrowing the ruling class.
But the people seem to be happy, so what does it matter?
Cards with the post 8th Edition, color shifted and future shifted templates as well as the timeshifted and Coldsnap reprint ones tastes a little sweeter. Any gold cards with the old faces are a little saltier. European foreign (except Russian) cards with the mentioned templates above are not as sweet as their English counterparts and has a wierd after taste. All taste tests were done from fresh packs and all cards tasted are not foil cards. I have yet to taste Asian and Russian cards.
Well, then I guess we just meant different things. Imo if immigrants gets taken care of they don't contribute to poverty.
The only ones that do are illegal but that is a different thread. Again it all depends on the issue. Your government supports them therefore your numbers are kinda bogus. If they are not working and contributing and living off the system then they are contributing to poverty.
We have those that do that here. they come here and the first thing they do is sign up for welfare. then sit down and live off the work of others. Then we have others that don't. they work hard and contribute and become very successful business people.
we use to have a pretty high standard to get into this country we don't anymore we just let whoever and whatever in.
Yes, minimum pays and such are good things as it secures a decent wage, and as such a decent life for its citizens.
Sorry i should have made myself more clear. Government is trying to pass laws one what firms can pay as bonuses to their employee's and they are trying to cap CEO pay and everything else. this was my fault.
Well, other countries have government run healtcare and that runs just fine. There are lot of drawbacks to having insurance companies run it.
Evidently you don't read the actual reports. While there are some issues with insurance companies it is worse with government. A year to see a doctor or a specialist. People can't get some drugs because of the expense even though it would save their life.
The cancer drugs that are out there that can up survival rates by 80+% they cannot get because the government doesn't want to foot the bill. Guess what those people get that treatment here.
I don't have to wait a year to see a doctor. I don't have to wait a year for surgery.
I don't have some government agency going sorry we ran out of funds and well you will have to deal with it until next budget cycle.
Sorry government healthcare doesn't work hence why european countries are pulling away from it. They can't afford the cost anymore.
I am for healthcare reform and straightening out the mess that is insurance but not with government control. again this is a different thread. PS the government has yet to run anything correctly.
Considering all the debt Bush managed to put the country in it would be utter madness to not raise taxes to pay it off. The people has to pay for what it leaders does badly.
The bush deficit was less than half of what it is right now. Up until 2008 bush had shrank the deficit to 161 billion dollars.
Correction they don't need to raise taxes they need to cut spending. If they cut spending they would have the money.
Raising taxes more so in a hurt economy just does more damage.
Everytime taxes are cut for businesses and people the federal government brings in more money.
sorry nan but the poor in this country qualify for a slew of government programs. they get free food, free rent, free utitlities, a check at the month based on the size of their family etc... they have to go sign up for it.
The system however is meant to keep them there not get them out. That is government control for you.
You can say what you want about the government running it or not. But the way the health system works in the US at the moment is inhumane and somehow very expensive.
Everyone in this country can get healtcare no matter what. So all the reports running around are BS. The problem is how it is setup and needs to be changed. We don't need government to do it. It was government that screwed up the healthcare industry to begin with. Why should we rely on them to fix it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
The only ones that do are illegal but that is a different thread. Again it all depends on the issue. Your government supports them therefore your numbers are kinda bogus. If they are not working and contributing and living off the system then they are contributing to poverty.
We have those that do that here. they come here and the first thing they do is sign up for welfare. then sit down and live off the work of others. Then we have others that don't. they work hard and contribute and become very successful business people.
Yes ofcourse, we have both type of people here. But the thing is that immigrants here do not contribute more per capita to poverty then norwegians.
Sorry i should have made myself more clear. Government is trying to pass laws one what firms can pay as bonuses to their employee's and they are trying to cap CEO pay and everything else. this was my fault.
Ah, well on this I do kind of agree with you. I don't think that the government should do such things. A free market on the wages in the private sector is important. However, it is important that they keep a check on things because the way they pay out different things can easily be used to evade taxes.
Evidently you don't read the actual reports. While there are some issues with insurance companies it is worse with government. A year to see a doctor or a specialist. People can't get some drugs because of the expense even though it would save their life.
The cancer drugs that are out there that can up survival rates by 80+% they cannot get because the government doesn't want to foot the bill. Guess what those people get that treatment here.
I don't have to wait a year to see a doctor. I don't have to wait a year for surgery.
That you are doing it badly does not mean the system itself is bad. I can get a doctors appointment today if I need one. If I need surgery or other treatment I get it within a couple of days or a week. Waiting here is only for things that are not important to do at once and that takes up a lot of resources so its not the common thing.
Also, we don't get denied treatment either because of prohibitive cost. There does exist a technical limit on how much money there is point in using, but I think it is at about 500k a year per person and no surgeries or medications cost that much. And that is just for pure hospitalstuff. Things you need in ways of accsessories to deal with disabilities and such (electric wheelchairs, homehelp, computers, etc) come in addition to that. Myself I probably get medical treatment for about 30-40k a year because of my several chronic conditions and I get aid for education and stuff for even more. The thing is that they don't weigh cost in the same way. Here it about wether you need it or not, the cost is not the important factor (ofcourse within reason and medical opinion).
I don't have some government agency going sorry we ran out of funds and well you will have to deal with it until next budget cycle.
It doesn't work like that here either. Which is why our hospitals go over budget all the time
Sorry government healthcare doesn't work hence why european countries are pulling away from it. They can't afford the cost anymore.
Afford the cost? We use less money per capita on our healtcare system then your government uses on yours and we have far wider coverage.
I am for healthcare reform and straightening out the mess that is insurance but not with government control. again this is a different thread. PS the government has yet to run anything correctly.
Then perhaps you need to fix your government Our government runs our schools, our hospitals, our police, our firefighters, our elder homes and lots of other things. And considering our booming economy, extremely high standard of living, and all other statistics I must say they are doing one hell of a job. Same thing can be said for the governments of New Zealand, Canada, Ireland, Sweden, Denmark, etc.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Einstein »
Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism -how passionately I hate them!
Quote from Nietzsche »
The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.
[thread=41221][my extendo sig][/thread] [thread=56664][moderator helpdesk][/thread] [Pen and Paper Inn]
Just add me on msn if you have any questions or just want to talk
as stated before you do not have the people that we do either. your system would collapse around it's ears if it had the same amount of people that we do.
the fact that they are trying to spend a trillion dollars and it isn't even going to cover the people that they want to cover says quite a bit.
not to mention the thousands more that will lose their coverage and be on the government plan.
they can't pay for what they are doing now.
their only choice at this point is to raise my taxes to pay for a service that i will not use which is less money for me and my family to support itself on.
yea we do need to straighten out our government and stop them from meddling in our lives.
Afford the cost? We use less money per capita on our healtcare system then your government uses on yours and we have far wider coverage.
I seriously doubt that. i very seriously doubt you can get the cancer drugs that we can get here. some of them cost 40K for treatments. i doubt your government run healthcare system will pay for that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Well, other countries have government run healtcare and that runs just fine. There are lot of drawbacks to having insurance companies run it.
Yeah, and other governments are not the US government. I will agree that other countries gov't health care runs fine for the most part, with exceptions for certain countries(i hear a lot of bad about the Canadian system). However, our government manages to not run any program efficiently, again part of having 300 million constituents spread over a area that is incredibly massive makes for more bureaucratic nonsense to cover the same objective.
Considering all the debt Bush managed to put the country in it would be utter madness to not raise taxes to pay it off. The people has to pay for what it leaders does badly.
Something I ABSOLUTLY agree with. If I where anywhere near in charge, I would want to raise taxes and cut spending. While i agree with mystery we need to cut spending, its more than just that as our deficit is too large.
However, other statistics also come out there. 2% of the poor OFTEN does not have enough food to eat. If anything like that happened here it would be a scandal. (it has happened here and has been a scandal). 10% have no phone. 30% of the poor has at least one of the following, overcrowding, hunger, no healthcare. Only a third has a PC. Growing up here in what I guess would be called poverty in Norway we had a large house, 4 pc's, 3 tv's, etc.
So you mean to tell me in your country of 5 million no one has trouble getting food? Also remember our levels of consumption are different. The average American no having enough to eat is far different than the average European... because we are fat.
But yes, I think the medical issues are one of the main issues with poverty as it is imo a basic human right. About 15% of the population have no health insurance. Also, there is a lot of people that are insured that, but that doesn't get the money they need when they get sick. Also about 40% of the population have sometime during the year chosen to not go to the doctor or similar thing because of the cost. In addition 20% of the population have problems paying medical bills, twice that of any other country.
I have a suggestion for you. You know how Bush lied about WMD's? Thats how big the lies in Michael Moore films are. If you quote numbers from him it makes you a sheep. I have no idea how he is viewed outside of the US but hear a lot of people trust anything they hear without doing any fact checking, thats what allows MM to do well.
Well, there was some conflicting numbers there. Some said a quarter, some said 20%. But even without the oil Norway only drops a few places down the list and lands right behind the US at sixth place or so. And considering we also have extreme amounts of growth in our gdp every year It really should not be a problem. I believe it was last year that Norways gdp grew with 6%, outpacing all other nations.
So take out the oil industry, and to fund all these wonderful government programs taxes increase massively? Neat how that works. Also how much of last years GDP increase was based off record high OIL prices?
Well, yes, this happened because of the merger. The government privatized Statoil before the merger, but they had not privatized Hydro yet so when the merger happened they again became the largest shareholder. However, they are quite strict about not interfering with the actual running of the company. Also, there are from what I know plans to once again sell out most of the shares after the election this fall. Traditionally the government has liked owning parts of big buisnisses, especially the ones that use our natural resources, but in the last decades this has been declining and more and more such companies have been privatized. Also, I didn't say it was a free market, it is a mixed market economy. Which means that while it is mostly free it has more regulations and such then say the US economy. However, the effects of this can easily be seen on the stability of the economies. Our currency is now one of the strongest and most stable in the world and we are one of the least affected by the financial crisis.
The merger proposal was announced in December 2006.[5] Under the rules of the EEA the merger was approved by the European Union on May 3, 2007[6] and by the Norwegian Parliament on June 8, 2007.[3] Statoil's shareholders hold 67.3% of the new company, with Norsk Hydro shareholders owning the remaining 32.7%.[6] The Norwegian Government, the biggest shareholder in both Statoil and Norsk Hydro, holds 62.5% of the company.
Obviously as a resident I take your information over wikipedia but just thought i would point this out.
Actually most immigrants we take in are refugees and that is quite unstringent. And because of our somewhat naive system for immigration we also get a lot of illegals. Illegals however are not counted on the records of poor people, neither in the US or in Norway. And the people we do take in to work here often have to be reeducated and such to qualify to Norwegian standards. So yes, most people that come here are also poor people, but they don't count any more for poverty levels.
Thats not true about our povery level to my understanding. They are counted in our population counts as a general rule.
as stated before you do not have the people that we do either. your system would collapse around it's ears if it had the same amount of people that we do.
the fact that they are trying to spend a trillion dollars and it isn't even going to cover the people that they want to cover says quite a bit.
not to mention the thousands more that will lose their coverage and be on the government plan.
they can't pay for what they are doing now.
their only choice at this point is to raise my taxes to pay for a service that i will not use which is less money for me and my family to support itself on.
yea we do need to straighten out our government and stop them from meddling in our lives.
What about our system would not scale upwards? Be spesific. And yes, your government is ****ing it up. Most other governments with socialized healtcare are not.
I seriously doubt that. i very seriously doubt you can get the cancer drugs that we can get here. some of them cost 40K for treatments. i doubt your government run healthcare system will pay for that.
As I said, the only limit to cost is about 500k a year which is only a theoretical limit really. I have never ever heard of anyone not getting treatment that is availible. And if for some reason we can not offer the treatment here we pay for the person to go to another country to get it done. Ofcourse, we don't just throw money at things. I for example did try a cheaper and more common drug for my arthritis at first. When it did not work as I wanted it to they moved on to the more expensive drugs that cost about 20k a year. Anyone with arthritis can get that drug if they need it.
And as far as spending less money, yes we do. I don't have the statistics at hand but if you don't believe me I can always find them for you.
Yeah, and other governments are not the US government. I will agree that other countries gov't health care runs fine for the most part, with exceptions for certain countries(i hear a lot of bad about the Canadian system). However, our government manages to not run any program efficiently, again part of having 300 million constituents spread over a area that is incredibly massive makes for more bureaucratic nonsense to cover the same objective.
Well, aren't you all for giving the states responsibility? Then just make the states handle it individually?
So you mean to tell me in your country of 5 million no one has trouble getting food? Also remember our levels of consumption are different. The average American no having enough to eat is far different than the average European... because we are fat.
Noone should have trouble getting food no. If someone has then it is their own fault for not managing their money. But even if they manage to do that once in a while they can go to the social offices and they will give them food. Though I am sure that some people refuse to do so because they find it demeaning, but that is their own choice. And I somehow find it unlikely that that the fat people of the US are the ones that have trouble getting food
I have a suggestion for you. You know how Bush lied about WMD's? Thats how big the lies in Michael Moore films are. If you quote numbers from him it makes you a sheep. I have no idea how he is viewed outside of the US but hear a lot of people trust anything they hear without doing any fact checking, thats what allows MM to do well.
Relax, I would never quote numbers from his films I quotes numbers from wikipedia and nationamaster mainly.
As for MM he is viewed in perhaps a bit too good light in the rest of the world and while I agree that he does lie way to much I do think that he points his fingers at important subjects. Not saying that he is always right, just that they are important.
So take out the oil industry, and to fund all these wonderful government programs taxes increase massively? Neat how that works. Also how much of last years GDP increase was based off record high OIL prices?
Actually, the record high gdp increase was according to economists caused by an unusually high consumer demand, but yes it will go down to more normal levels this year.
And no, our welfare is not powered by oil. We actually save up all our oil money and we only spend 4% of the interest on the oil. This is to not get a huge inflation by pumping all the money into the economy. It also makes sure we are not dependent on oil.
The merger proposal was announced in December 2006.[5] Under the rules of the EEA the merger was approved by the European Union on May 3, 2007[6] and by the Norwegian Parliament on June 8, 2007.[3] Statoil's shareholders hold 67.3% of the new company, with Norsk Hydro shareholders owning the remaining 32.7%.[6] The Norwegian Government, the biggest shareholder in both Statoil and Norsk Hydro, holds 62.5% of the company.
Obviously as a resident I take your information over wikipedia but just thought i would point this out.
Yes, I know this. This is correct. What I said was mostly taken from the same wikipedia article. But as said, privatizing such companies is a continiuing process that doesn't happen overnight.
Thats not true about our povery level to my understanding. They are counted in our population counts as a general rule.
I won't say this for sure, but as far as I know they are not counted because it would be guesswork. We (and you) only have estimates on the number of illegals and how theyre economy is.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Einstein »
Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism -how passionately I hate them!
Quote from Nietzsche »
The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.
[thread=41221][my extendo sig][/thread] [thread=56664][moderator helpdesk][/thread] [Pen and Paper Inn]
Just add me on msn if you have any questions or just want to talk
The U.S is in the top ten for PPP and is roughly 40x bigger then the other countries population wise and much larger geographically and much more ethnically diverse then the other countries in the top 10.
That is pretty damn impressive.
And if we are going by best, why are we ignoring military superiority?
America is with out a doubt has the most dominate military in the world.
Seriously this argument seems to be you defining what is best by what you feel is best and it happens to be what Norway is best at and ignoring the weakness of Norway, like a state church, as not really part of the culture.
America has the highest nominal GDP of sovereign nations, has a PPP based GDP in the top 10 as I said early against countries it dwarfs in size, population, and diversity, a military that would defeat any other country.
BTW what parties did Norway ellect to the EU? I know conservatives and ultra conservatives did well in most of europe did Norway follow suit?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Don't you see that the whole aim of Moderators is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make infractions literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten.
What about our system would not scale upwards? Be spesific. And yes, your government is ****ing it up. Most other governments with socialized healtcare are not.
This is true. I was pointing out population differences in size to space etc. Not pure numbers as mystery is.
Well, aren't you all for giving the states responsibility? Then just make the states handle it individually?
Yeah that might work with the feds funding it. The problem is they need federal money to fund the programs since most states dont tax. which will need oversight etc etc useless bureaucracy.
Noone should have trouble getting food no. If someone has then it is their own fault for not managing their money. But even if they manage to do that once in a while they can go to the social offices and they will give them food. Though I am sure that some people refuse to do so because they find it demeaning, but that is their own choice. And I somehow find it unlikely that that the fat people of the US are the ones that have trouble getting food
Much like immigrants we also spit on poor people on a regular basis. Everytime i go to wal mart I make it a personal mission to spit at the homeless.... only wait... ive never seen a homeless person in my life. So essentially what you are saying is people there are hungry because the dont go to the places with food... thats exactly what happens here.
Is that so hard to believe? People don't dig thrash cans for food, let alone starve to death, in Norway.
You know how in movies set in New York you often see those street bums living in cardboard boxes in dark alleys? We don't have those in Northern Europe. My first-hand experiences of NY are limited to the airport terminal, so I wouldn't know how many you really have of them.
Read the above... also QUITE USING MOVIES AS RESEARCH TOOLS :facepalm:... that isnt just aimed at you... watch dirty harry sometime we all talk like he does and shoot the biggest magnum gun at our enemies.
And if we are going by best, why are we ignoring military superiority?
Well, because there is no agreement on that being a good thing to rate by. In fact, many people are of the opinion that a big military is bad for a country.
Seriously this argument seems to be you defining what is best by what you feel is best and it happens to be what Norway is best at and ignoring the weakness of Norway, like a state church, as not really part of the culture.
Well, yes, I define what is best in my opinion, but I am quite interested in hearing what other people think is best and why they think so. Also, I do in no way ignore Norway's weaknesses, such as the state church. However, I also pointed out earlier, that while we do have a State church and the US don't, religion still is far more integrated with the government in the US then it is here and Religion is far, far larger issue in the US then here. Norway is after all one of the worlds most secular countries.
America has the highest nominal GDP of sovereign nations, has a PPP based GDP in the top 10 as I said early against countries it dwarfs in size, population, and diversity, a military that would defeat any other country.
Well, yes this is all true. However, I think that it is not unfair to compare EU or at least Eurozone with with the US and then its not that big a difference after all. Also, Canada is not far behind on the GDP PPP per capita so you are not the only large country doing well. And the differences aren't that big up in the top. You have to go all the way down to 37th place to find someone with half that of the american gdp ppp per capita (saudi arabia)
BTW what parties did Norway ellect to the EU? I know conservatives and ultra conservatives did well in most of europe did Norway follow suit?
Norway is not a part of EU. If we did vote we would probably vote for moderate/liberal parties.
Much like immigrants we also spit on poor people on a regular basis. Everytime i go to wal mart I make it a personal mission to spit at the homeless.... only wait... ive never seen a homeless person in my life. So essentially what you are saying is people there are hungry because the dont go to the places with food... thats exactly what happens here.
I'll easily admit that people here, including myself, is probably too much biased by movies and such when it comes to poverty. But statistics also do say that 2% of the poor (which is about 0,4% of the population) often goes hungry. Imo that is more then just not chosing to eat or similar. I do not however have such detailed statistics about Norway to compare with, but from personal experience I am quite sure that they are lower.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Einstein »
Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism -how passionately I hate them!
Quote from Nietzsche »
The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.
[thread=41221][my extendo sig][/thread] [thread=56664][moderator helpdesk][/thread] [Pen and Paper Inn]
Just add me on msn if you have any questions or just want to talk
A powerful military is good thing in that it secure an american citizen here and abroad, it allows the government to secure its interests abroad, and it allows the country to intervene to well do what it wants in foreign situations, you might no agree with like say Iraqi and Afghanistan but with a strong military a country can do those things and it doesnt need to rely of the U.N or another international group, which are notorious for being beucratic at the best and corrupt at the worst.
And it is a little bit of a what if scenario, but in this day and age we take for granted that there wont be a massive conflict because people know that its going to end up being a war no one wins because the U.S. military will beat the side its not on and the non-U.S. side could be forced to use nuclear weapons as its only reproach.
In a sense it forced the game to go to the nuclear level and no one, and I dont even think Kim Jong Il willing to play that game.
Also canada has what? A tenth of the population, its pretty homogenous compared to America and its not spread being centered mostly in the south in Quebec and Vancouver areas.
Also I dont think religion tieing to politicals like it does in America is a bad thing, I'm all for giving onto cesear what is cesears but if government loses the moralilty that religion provides it can be bad.
I think the U.S. has struck a nice balance not a christian state but also not turned into, and I love you dutchies so dont be too offended, into the Netherlands where their views on amoralilty have become just as tyrannical.
And you really have to experience the whole America before you can start comparing it, I havent and I am an american thats been to every state. The two party system might not give everyone a voice but it has to be that way since there are so many voices.
Parlimantary systems even in relatively homogenous places like Europe have problems with having to form coalitions to do stuff, imagine it in America with soooo many competing intrests. The only country that I can think of and its not a great comparison is India.
And that brings me to another point, yes we have social issues that are problems but compared to the other country that is as diverse as us we are lightyears ahead of it. I mean really; India has what I would consider slavery as present struggle in that the caste system even though outlawed is actively practiced.
Do you think an untouchable could be elected in India?
And your not part of E.U.? I didnt know that, why not?
Also I would venture to say most Americans love their country even though they might not agree with everything it does, and part of this comes from the fact that well people, you crazy liberals out there , get really upset they say they want to move to Canada, a country thats nearly identical to America.
And unless your really cynical and think its brainwashed masses what else really matters?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Don't you see that the whole aim of Moderators is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make infractions literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten.
A powerful military is good thing in that it secure an american citizen here and abroad, it allows the government to secure its interests abroad, and it allows the country to intervene to well do what it wants in foreign situations, you might no agree with like say Iraqi and Afghanistan but with a strong military a country can do those things and it doesnt need to rely of the U.N or another international group, which are notorious for being beucratic at the best and corrupt at the worst.
And it is a little bit of a what if scenario, but in this day and age we take for granted that there wont be a massive conflict because people know that its going to end up being a war no one wins because the U.S. military will beat the side its not on and the non-U.S. side could be forced to use nuclear weapons as its only reproach.
The US military isn't THAT almighty. Yes it is powerfull, but the combined EU armies are pretty comparable in many ways. Also, economics is a much bigger part of it. Foreign countries like China could destroy the American economy if it so chose. With the economy in a complete collapse the US military might would not count for much.
Also canada has what? A tenth of the population, its pretty homogenous compared to America and its not spread being centered mostly in the south in Quebec and Vancouver areas.
Yes, that is true, they do have a lot less people, but the diversity is about the same.
Also I dont think religion tieing to politicals like it does in America is a bad thing, I'm all for giving onto cesear what is cesears but if government loses the moralilty that religion provides it can be bad.
Well, morality does not come inheritly from religion. And I think any country that elects its leaders based on religious preferences has religion way to much mixed up with politics. It reminds me more of certain muslim countries then most other western countries.
I think the U.S. has struck a nice balance not a christian state but also not turned into, and I love you dutchies so dont be too offended, into the Netherlands where their views on amoralilty have become just as tyrannical.
A nice balance? most of the population wouldn't vote for a non-religious president. 90% of the population is religious. You have put god on your money, in your laws, etc, etc.
And how is Dutch views on "amorallity" tyrannical? Please explain.
And you really have to experience the whole America before you can start comparing it, I havent and I am an american thats been to every state. The two party system might not give everyone a voice but it has to be that way since there are so many voices.
********. Have you seen the system for the EU parliament? There was an election recently and it doesn't work the same way as the US even with twice the amount of voters. Each persons vote in each country matters. In Sweden for example the Swedish "Pirate Party" that fights for digital rights and such they got 4-6% of the Swedish votes or such. That was enough for 1 seat in the parliament.
Parlimantary systems even in relatively homogenous places like Europe have problems with having to form coalitions to do stuff, imagine it in America with soooo many competing intrests. The only country that I can think of and its not a great comparison is India.
That is a really bad reason. Compare with European Parliment which is larger and more diverse then the US. And yes, they do form coalitions. That is not a bad thing. For example here the current government is a coalition of 3 parties that are center/left. One party has 35ish %, one has 10ish and one has 6ish. They form a block government that work together, but how the power inside works depends on their relative size differences. That way over half the country is represented in government and the power differences inside the government are a representation of what the people voted. Also, why do you think the US is so much more diverse then Europe which has twice the population and twice the area?
And that brings me to another point, yes we have social issues that are problems but compared to the other country that is as diverse as us we are lightyears ahead of it. I mean really; India has what I would consider slavery as present struggle in that the caste system even though outlawed is actively practiced.
Do you think an untouchable could be elected in India?
You really think comparing the US to India is better then comparing it to Norway?
And your not part of E.U.? I didnt know that, why not?
Because we don't want to We have had public votes on it several times and it has always been no, though not by a huge majority. As for now I think it is about 50/50 and I believe it will be taken up again as a political issue sometime the next 10 years or so. The no-sayers put up issues such as soverignity, national interests, trade, etc. I tend to agree as the Norwegian economy is on such a different level then the EU.
Also I would venture to say most Americans love their country even though they might not agree with everything it does, and part of this comes from the fact that well people, you crazy liberals out there , get really upset they say they want to move to Canada, a country thats nearly identical to America.
And unless your really cynical and think its brainwashed masses what else really matters?
Lol, yes us crazy liberals with our ideas of personal freedom, social justice, growing open economies, low poverty and other such abominations
And how is Canada nearly identical to the US?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Einstein »
Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism -how passionately I hate them!
Quote from Nietzsche »
The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.
[thread=41221][my extendo sig][/thread] [thread=56664][moderator helpdesk][/thread] [Pen and Paper Inn]
Just add me on msn if you have any questions or just want to talk
I'll easily admit that people here, including myself, is probably too much biased by movies and such when it comes to poverty. But statistics also do say that 2% of the poor (which is about 0,4% of the population) often goes hungry. Imo that is more then just not chosing to eat or similar. I do not however have such detailed statistics about Norway to compare with, but from personal experience I am quite sure that they are lower.
So you think you would be aware on the street just by seeing someone? I mean we are talking 1 in 250 people have trouble getting food. Also we arent talking about stomachs expanded from protein difference hunger. This is America, not Africa. Also "mo that is more then just not chosing to eat or similar." That is kind of unfair since this entire time we have been comparing based on capita, now your changing the parameters.
So you think you would be aware on the street just by seeing someone? I mean we are talking 1 in 250 people have trouble getting food. Also we arent talking about stomachs expanded from protein difference hunger. This is America, not Africa. Also "mo that is more then just not chosing to eat or similar." That is kind of unfair since this entire time we have been comparing based on capita, now your changing the parameters.
Oh I am still talking per capita, but as I said, it is hard to compare such details as I don't have those data for Norway. However, subjectivly from what I know about the Norwegian system I think its hard to measure here because the margin of error would simply be larger then the actual number.
But yes, homelessness is probably easier to compare. about 0,1% of Norwegians are homeless. Why these people are homeless is a good question, and its mostly people that have fallen through the social system and security nets. Everyone no matter what has a right to a place to live. Though, from what I have read a large part of the homeless in Norway are actually people in prison that have moved out of their apartments before going to jail. They count for homeless people somehow
Total Number
Quote from wikipedia on homelessness in the US »
* As many as 3.5 million people experience homelessness in a given year (1% of the entire U.S. population or 10% of its poor), and about 842,000 people in any given week.[10] Most were homeless temporarily. The chronically homeless population (those with repeated episodes or who have been homeless for long periods) fell from 175,914 in 2005 to 123,833 in 2007.[11]
the decrease is ofcourse very good, but the differences are still pretty large.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Einstein »
Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism -how passionately I hate them!
Quote from Nietzsche »
The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.
[thread=41221][my extendo sig][/thread] [thread=56664][moderator helpdesk][/thread] [Pen and Paper Inn]
Just add me on msn if you have any questions or just want to talk
What, do you want us to start a list of all the ways in which Canada and the US don't differ? Similar historical experiences and, especially in modernity, massive cultural exchange have resulted in very similar countries. Take a typical American, transport him to a major Canadian city, and give him some sort of mental block so that he doesn't notice the superficial things like all the maple leaves and signs saying "Bank of Toronto", and it might take him a while to realize he's not in the US. Try the same experiment with Australia, much less Norway, and he'll catch on much faster.
Of course, for many American liberals threatening to move to Canada, this is part of the attraction: you can disown the American government without really leaving the culture you're familiar with.
But yes, homelessness is probably easier to compare. about 0,1% of Norwegians are homeless. Why these people are homeless is a good question, and its mostly people that have fallen through the social system and security nets. Everyone no matter what has a right to a place to live. Though, from what I have read a large part of the homeless in Norway are actually people in prison that have moved out of their apartments before going to jail. They count for homeless people somehow
The U.S. military would Im sorry wipe the floor with Europes military , I mean this isnt saying that Europe is inferior its just not on that high of a priority to yall.
Also for the ley person at least in America religion and up upbringing (which is primarily religion) is where they get their morality Id venture to say most of the world area wise works that way.
The Executive is both the figure head and executor of America, so most americans want a President that shares the same values. Americans are very religious, unless your saying that being religious is bad which I dont think you are.
Europe is more homogenus then America though, most people are caucasian and share a common (albeit nasty war filled) history. I mean just look at the bios for any European country and compare it to the bio of america.
Also though the EU is big step forward towards an actual formal country its not, it doesnt have the same kind of governing authority of a sovereign nation. So do you think it would be a good thing for the democrats to have to cow tow to the pirate party so it can maintain its majority.
The weakness of those forms, is that once it becomes factionilized enough a radical group gains a massive amount of pull, now ask yourself would it be okay if the Norweigan conservative party had to cow tow to one of the nearly white supremist groups that got seats like in the EU from Britian?
The Dutch are not happy about the large groups of conservative Islamists that are imigrating into the country and parties have sprung up, I believe a house member? was even in america doing interviews on how the Islamist beliefs were undermining the Netherlands ad nauseum.
I also said India wasn't the greatest example because of its poor nature, but it is a country with similar factionalism amongst its ethnicity.
And how can I say Canada is nearly identical to the U.S? Because I lived right over the border in Calais, ME and Seattle. And had many Canadian friends and visited almost everything except the Ice Planet known as Hoth.... I mean the North West territories. The culture is nearly identical to the U.S. They have to have quotas on what gets put on the TV because the authentic Canadian culture would disapear
Also I would like an apology for Hagar the damn Viking has been clogging up the comics for ages while good stuff like the Farside and Boondocks are gone. And is it true its illegal to go bankrupt in Norway?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Don't you see that the whole aim of Moderators is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make infractions literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten.
Blinking Spirit: That was the article I was reffering to about statistics for Norwegian homelessness.
The U.S. military would Im sorry wipe the floor with Europes military , I mean this isnt saying that Europe is inferior its just not on that high of a priority to yall.
This might be true, but then again, nukes, diplomacy, nato and economics make any such scenario where it would matter highly unlikley.
Also for the ley person at least in America religion and up upbringing (which is primarily religion) is where they get their morality Id venture to say most of the world area wise works that way.
And? Morals come from culture. Religion is a part of culture. Cultures with little religion still have morals.
The Executive is both the figure head and executor of America, so most americans want a President that shares the same values. Americans are very religious, unless your saying that being religious is bad which I dont think you are.
Good values and being religious is not the same thing. And as for the inherent goodness of religion that is hardly a discussion worth taking.
Europe is more homogenus then America though, most people are caucasian and share a common (albeit nasty war filled) history. I mean just look at the bios for any European country and compare it to the bio of america.
Try again. Europe is no more homogeneous then Europe.
Also though the EU is big step forward towards an actual formal country its not, it doesnt have the same kind of governing authority of a sovereign nation. So do you think it would be a good thing for the democrats to have to cow tow to the pirate party so it can maintain its majority.
Still, they do decide upon laws, run the economy, trade, etc. When it solidifies its military and creates a common constitution then it will be more or less just as much a sovereign country as the US was supposed to be when it first was created.
And no the smaller parties doesn't need to be cow towed like that. Minority governments are also possible.
The weakness of those forms, is that once it becomes factionilized enough a radical group gains a massive amount of pull, now ask yourself would it be okay if the Norweigan conservative party had to cow tow to one of the nearly white supremist groups that got seats like in the EU from Britian?
I do not view it as a weakness, I view it is a nessecery result of democracy. However, I also believe that those kind of views can be defeated through openness, debate and education.
The Dutch are not happy about the large groups of conservative Islamists that are imigrating into the country and parties have sprung up, I believe a house member? was even in america doing interviews on how the Islamist beliefs were undermining the Netherlands ad nauseum.
Sure, with a lot of muslims immigrating to all over Europe it creates tensions and issues as their conservative views merge with Europes mostly liberal views. However, I don't see what this has to do with the Dutch "tyrranical" view on "amorality" as you call it.
Also I would like an apology for Hagar the damn Viking has been clogging up the comics for ages while good stuff like the Farside and Boondocks are gone. And is it true its illegal to go bankrupt in Norway?
Uhm, why would it be illegal?
But yes as far as the Canada issue is concerned I'm gonna leave that one dead. I do not know enough about the subject.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Einstein »
Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism -how passionately I hate them!
Quote from Nietzsche »
The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.
[thread=41221][my extendo sig][/thread] [thread=56664][moderator helpdesk][/thread] [Pen and Paper Inn]
Just add me on msn if you have any questions or just want to talk
Large differences in demographics come about as an effect of social policy. That's all.
Or border-drawing, famously demonstrated in the Balkans or the Middle East. If the demographic changes are voluntary, say, by immigration, you have fewer (but not zero) problems.
Then perhaps you need to fix your government Our government runs our schools, our hospitals, our police, our firefighters, our elder homes and lots of other things. And considering our booming economy, extremely high standard of living, and all other statistics I must say they are doing one hell of a job. Same thing can be said for the governments of New Zealand, Canada, Ireland, Sweden, Denmark, etc.
All smaaaaallll countries. To be fair, a good argument could be made for letting states handle it, since most individual states are close to European countries in population, if not smaller. I think, actually, that Canada does this with its provinces; they fund low-population provinces so that everyone has the same budget.
I'm sure that Washington state or Colorado, as I may have said before, could do just as well as Norway et. al. in public health care. Education could use a reform or three, and specifically not throwing more money at it.
Something I ABSOLUTLY agree with. If I where anywhere near in charge, I would want to raise taxes and cut spending. While i agree with mystery we need to cut spending, its more than just that as our deficit is too large.
The current issue is, should we raise taxes during an economic slump?
So you mean to tell me in your country of 5 million no one has trouble getting food? Also remember our levels of consumption are different. The average American no having enough to eat is far different than the average European... because we are fat.
"Oh no, we're out of cupcakes!" To be fair, when I visited Europe it seemed like all the breakfast cereal was chocolate.
I have a suggestion for you. You know how Bush lied about WMD's? Thats how big the lies in Michael Moore films are.
The biggest one (well, more an omission than outright lie) was the cheap drugs in Cuba thing. That drugs in Cuba are cheap does not address the fact that American pharma companies made the drugs. The problem is more our insurance system which inflates drug prices.
What about our system would not scale upwards? Be spesific. And yes, your government is ****ing it up. Most other governments with socialized healtcare are not.
As it gets bigger, you have to run a tighter ship. And to be fair, 5 million to 300 million is a 60x increase. This is not insignificant.
Also our political process is... how can I put this... not very efficient.
And no, our welfare is not powered by oil. We actually save up all our oil money and we only spend 4% of the interest on the oil. This is to not get a huge inflation by pumping all the money into the economy. It also makes sure we are not dependent on oil.
A very solid plan. You wouldn't want to repeat the mistakes of Spain when it brought back all that gold from the Americas... now that was a depression.
The U.S is in the top ten for PPP and is roughly 40x bigger then the other countries population wise and much larger geographically and much more ethnically diverse then the other countries in the top 10.
Yeah that might work with the feds funding it. The problem is they need federal money to fund the programs since most states dont tax. which will need oversight etc etc useless bureaucracy.
Right. Ideally, Congress could come up with a basic framework for a public plan that states would be free to adopt individually, adding whatever is necessary or fund-able. Decentralize, decentralize, decentralize, but keep a common thread. I think the biggest necessity is that anyone should be able to get treatment if they really need it.
A powerful military is good thing in that it secure an american citizen here and abroad, it allows the government to secure its interests abroad, and it allows the country to intervene to well do what it wants in foreign situations, you might no agree with like say Iraqi and Afghanistan but with a strong military a country can do those things and it doesnt need to rely of the U.N or another international group, which are notorious for being beucratic at the best and corrupt at the worst.
But an American citizen only needs the security of the American military if he's somewhere where he could feel unsecure. And really, why would I walk into a warzone? And as for securing "national interests" and foreign intervention, these points are eminently true. The problem remains, who decides these interests, and who does the intervention benefit.
I really don't see how "because we can" is a good justification for anything.
And it is a little bit of a what if scenario, but in this day and age we take for granted that there wont be a massive conflict because people know that its going to end up being a war no one wins because the U.S. military will beat the side its not on and the non-U.S. side could be forced to use nuclear weapons as its only reproach.
In a sense it forced the game to go to the nuclear level and no one, and I dont even think Kim Jong Il willing to play that game.
[quote=BurningPaladin;/comments/11002756]Also I dont think religion tieing to politicals like it does in America is a bad thing, I'm all for giving onto cesear what is cesears but if government loses the moralilty that religion provides it can be bad.
Er... no. What morality? Oftentimes the same people that preach morality side with the people who want to exorcise that nebulous demon, "welfare," and conveniently forget that little parable, "it is easier for a camel pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to pass into Heaven."
I think the U.S. has struck a nice balance not a christian state but also not turned into, and I love you dutchies so dont be too offended, into the Netherlands where their views on amoralilty have become just as tyrannical.
So "amorality" is "stratospheric levels of tolerance"? I guess the inverse is true: "morality" draws the line somewhere.
Parlimantary systems even in relatively homogenous places like Europe have problems with having to form coalitions to do stuff, imagine it in America with soooo many competing intrests.
It would certainly be lively. And nonpermanent coalitions would be ideal! We'd actually see clearly what side of the argument people were on, for a change.
And that brings me to another point, yes we have social issues that are problems but compared to the other country that is as diverse as us we are lightyears ahead of it. I mean really; India has what I would consider slavery as present struggle in that the caste system even though outlawed is actively practiced.
In Sweden for example the Swedish "Pirate Party" that fights for digital rights and such they got 4-6% of the Swedish votes or such. That was enough for 1 seat in the parliament.
And I would so register for the Pirate Party. (For the record, I also agree with their platform, not just their name. :D)
That is a really bad reason. Compare with European Parliment which is larger and more diverse then the US. And yes, they do form coalitions. That is not a bad thing. For example here the current government is a coalition of 3 parties that are center/left.
Of course, for many American liberals threatening to move to Canada, this is part of the attraction: you can disown the American government without really leaving the culture you're familiar with.
Or even leaving the country all that much; 75% of Canadians live within 90 miles of the American border.
Also for the ley person at least in America religion and up upbringing (which is primarily religion) is where they get their morality Id venture to say most of the world area wise works that way.
I dunno, I'd say most of the world isn't as rules-lawyerish about religion as many followers of the Abrahamic religions are. Japan is a good example; most people are religious, but they probably couldn't say whether they're Shinto or Buddhist. They probably do both (a rare case of coexistence, since the two religions are quite synergistic).
The Executive is both the figure head and executor of America, so most americans want a President that shares the same values. Americans are very religious, unless your saying that being religious is bad which I dont think you are.
I am. Stupid decisions are made on faith more often than brilliant decisions are... except in the movies.
Europe is more homogenus then America though, most people are caucasian and share a common (albeit nasty war filled) history. I mean just look at the bios for any European country and compare it to the bio of america.
Ahem. Mostly Caucasian != homogeneous. I believe few people are like "hey, I'm Caucasian, you're Caucasian, let's do Caucasian things together." Europe is a hodgepodge of ethnicities (under the general banner of Caucasian)... this is particularly evident in... well, history, but also the division of the former Soviet bloc countries. The Balkan states.
Read the above... also QUITE USING MOVIES AS RESEARCH TOOLS :facepalm:... that isnt just aimed at you... watch dirty harry sometime we all talk like he does and shoot the biggest magnum gun at our enemies.
You shouldn't use movies as a research tool, nor should you allow them to define your worldview, but in this case, it's true. I live in New York. It's easy to find homeless people.
the decrease is ofcourse very good, but the differences are still pretty large.
From what i understood in that article, the chronically homeless is what was being discussed. IE the 1.2% is the people who are homeless for long periods of time. Since yall have limited public housing, but with an apparent time limit on how long it can be stayed in that puts your chronically homeless at a MUCH MUCH higher percentage than our own. Also people who stay at homeless shelters, are counted amongst our homeless. They have shelter in other words.
You shouldn't use movies as a research tool, nor should you allow them to define your worldview, but in this case, it's true. I live in New York. It's easy to find homeless people.
Easy yes, watch films from the 80s and 90s, and you would think every alley is a homeless convocation.
All smaaaaallll countries. To be fair, a good argument could be made for letting states handle it, since most individual states are close to European countries in population, if not smaller. I think, actually, that Canada does this with its provinces; they fund low-population provinces so that everyone has the same budget.
I'm sure that Washington state or Colorado, as I may have said before, could do just as well as Norway et. al. in public health care. Education could use a reform or three, and specifically not throwing more money at it.
Yes, I think we agree very much in this. Some things tends to get cluttered up in bureaucracy and corruption when its over such large areas and such large populations.
The current issue is, should we raise taxes during an economic slump?
The thing is that this is not an economic slump. Very large debts and deficits that will take decades of high taxes to correct.
As it gets bigger, you have to run a tighter ship. And to be fair, 5 million to 300 million is a 60x increase. This is not insignificant.
Also our political process is... how can I put this... not very efficient.
Well, yes, I agree. This would explain a difference in the cost-effectiveness. It doesn't explain coverage though, neither why having the government run it would be bad or wouldn't work.
On the contrary; that kind of desperation breeds rash action, and it would be disastrous for anyone involved. Look at, say, Rome.
Well, yes, that is a good point, but I do not think that the US would be able to keep its military up and running if as you put it China used the d-bomb.
And I would so register for the Pirate Party. (For the record, I also agree with their platform, not just their name. )
The party I am a member of has many of the same opinions as the Pirate Party
Well, it's illegal to commit suicide in some places here...
Haha, yeah well true
From what i understood in that article, the chronically homeless is what was being discussed. IE the 1.2% is the people who are homeless for long periods of time. Since yall have limited public housing, but with an apparent time limit on how long it can be stayed in that puts your chronically homeless at a MUCH MUCH higher percentage than our own. Also people who stay at homeless shelters, are counted amongst our homeless. They have shelter in other words.
I did not understand it as such as talking about chronicly homeless people. And the limited public housing is not exactly true. Yes there is ofcourse limited government owned buildings at their disposal, but they will put them in a hotel room if they have to. They have no other choice as by law everyone has the right to a place to live. Also, the thing about the time limit is simply not true or very outdated information. Also, if you find a place to live yourself that is cheap then the state will pay for it.
edit: the information in the article is 11 years old
edit: A little more research and I managed to piece together some info from various news papers. There are approxmiatly 0,12% homeless, but the classification of homeless includes anyone without a permanent resident. This means that people that are given temporary housing by the governments (because of lack of houses) are added into this and it also includes people that have short leases on their house (6 months or less) so it also includes certain season workers which certainly don't classify as homeless with a more common definition of the word.
Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism -how passionately I hate them!
Quote from Nietzsche »
The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.
[thread=41221][my extendo sig][/thread] [thread=56664][moderator helpdesk][/thread] [Pen and Paper Inn]
Just add me on msn if you have any questions or just want to talk
I did not understand it as such as talking about chronicly homeless people. And the limited public housing is not exactly true. Yes there is ofcourse limited government owned buildings at their disposal, but they will put them in a hotel room if they have to. They have no other choice as by law everyone has the right to a place to live. Also, the thing about the time limit is simply not true or very outdated information. Also, if you find a place to live yourself that is cheap then the state will pay for it.
edit: A little more research and I managed to piece together some info from various news papers. There are approxmiatly 0,12% homeless, but the classification of homeless includes anyone without a permanent resident. This means that people that are given temporary housing by the governments (because of lack of houses) are added into this and it also includes people that have short leases on their house (6 months or less) so it also includes certain season workers which certainly don't classify as homeless with a more common definition of the word.
Notice where i pointed out just that as well. We also have a HUGE migrant worker population in the california areas etc.
BTW NY contains a very disproportionate amount of homeless with 33k. HOWEVER they have the same laws you do, MUST BE PROVIDED HOUSING. Can we put this discussion to rest any time soon?
The thing is that this is not an economic slump. Very large debts and deficits that will take decades of high taxes to correct.
Well, it's not the Great Depression and probably on paper we could raise taxes and it wouldn't be a problem, but a "tax increase" scares a lot of people (unreasonably, IMO) and so it wouldn't pass.
One way to circumvent this is to not make a net increase but to first strip away existing, unnecessary programs or taxes, reappropriate money, etc. Housecleaning, in other words.
Well, yes, I agree. This would explain a difference in the cost-effectiveness. It doesn't explain coverage though, neither why having the government run it would be bad or wouldn't work.
The common argument against it involves favoring a multiplicity of competing solutions over one monolithic one. Personally I don't see any reason why a publicly-funded one shouldn't exist, at least as a back-up plan for people who can't afford really good health-care. But actually a state-by-state system of public healthcare could probably do much better, since you would then have fifty different policies being tried at once. If one or two states' programs proved to be extremely popular, then more states would adopt those policies and you'd have a generally better system.
Corporations complain because they say that government could just impose restrictions on them, can operate at a loss, etc. Which really masks a fear of competition on their part, and a lack of good sportsmanship.
Well, yes, that is a good point, but I do not think that the US would be able to keep its military up and running if as you put it China used the d-bomb.
War would, in all likelihood, break out. The question is whether it would be a civil war, or a retaliation against China, or both. It doesn't cost that much money to push the big red button.
Well, it's not the Great Depression and probably on paper we could raise taxes and it wouldn't be a problem, but a "tax increase" scares a lot of people (unreasonably, IMO) and so it wouldn't pass.
One way to circumvent this is to not make a net increase but to first strip away existing, unnecessary programs or taxes, reappropriate money, etc. Housecleaning, in other words.
I agree which is why i said in a year or so. I am a true conservative(not a republican) so im in favor of raising taxes and lower budgets atm because tbh we seem to have this illusion that our money is safe from hyper inflation and massive devaluation. Its just that, an illusion.
Corporations complain because they say that government could just impose restrictions on them, can operate at a loss, etc. Which really masks a fear of competition on their part, and a lack of good sportsmanship.
According to recent pools over 50% of the public believes that the govt. owning the car companies is going to hurt Ford a lot since they will make unfavorable laws for Ford.
Infant mortality, life expectancy, the GINI coefficient etc (if anyone cares) and availability of health care are all lower for the US than other first-world countries.
Congratulations, you just used very particular assertions as evidence for an overly broad assertion. Furthermore, even if the particular assertions were true, the broad assertion wouldn't necessarily follow.
Do that again and our discussion is over. Permanently.
Large differences in demographics come about as an effect of social policy. That's all.
....what?
Quote from Frein »
I'm pretty sure Norway has a system similar to ours and I can easily get an appointment with a doctor any day of the week. We also don't have the other problems you describe where drugs or treatment is denied because of costs. This is because we have a private health care sector along with a public one and while you don't get treatment for free, the government pays a part of your bill if you choose to use them. __________________
This is the LAST time I will say this.
In the State of New York, every child whether an illegal immigrant or not can get health insurance regardless of the income of their parents. The premium cost is on a sliding scale from $0 USD to a max of less than $100 USD per month through a program called Child Health Plus. Other States offer roughly similar programs, such as Montana's which reaches a rare max of $215. The higher costs are only required from families that can afford them.
The poorest of the poor are covered FREE nationwide by the various Medicaid programs. Those who (for no apparent reason) refrain from applying for Medicaid often end up flocking to the various free clinics, at least here in New York State where we have quite a few.
Older persons are generally covered by Medicare.
Veteran's have their own benefits, and of course, so do the politicians.
There is definitely a place where we're having trouble with health insurance, and that is a rather specific demographic.
It has to do with people between childhood and senior citizenship who are both incapable of getting insurance through a job AND they must be somewhere floating between poor and wealthy where they can neither get free coverage, nor can they afford individual insurance.
In effect, these are specific people that might afford their own care just fine if they were not simultaneously forced by the government to subsidize coverage for the poor, the elderly and veterans to such a tremendous degree. Additionally all sorts of state regulations and requirements for health insurance providers hamper this group further by driving up the cost with mandating coverage for unnecessary procedures, making acceptance guaranteed (which lets people wait until they need insurance to purchase it, ultimately defeating the entire idea of the thing)
I have no doubt that we will, in time, deal with these matters. Unfortunately though, the crisis has been pretty damn misrepresented.
After hearing what I've been hearing, If I was living some place like Canada I might think that in the U.S. the poor can't get treatments when that's actually the opposite of the truth. The poor and the wealthy are the lucky of this system.
The common argument against it involves favoring a multiplicity of competing solutions over one monolithic one. Personally I don't see any reason why a publicly-funded one shouldn't exist, at least as a back-up plan for people who can't afford really good health-care. But actually a state-by-state system of public healthcare could probably do much better, since you would then have fifty different policies being tried at once. If one or two states' programs proved to be extremely popular, then more states would adopt those policies and you'd have a generally better system.
This is true. However, the big problem I see is all the private hospitals you have. We have more or less only public hospitals and this lets us keep the wages of doctors at a high, but not extraordinarily so level. When you private hospitals the wages get pushed up there and the good doctors leaves for private hospitals. This leads to a large gap between the standard of public healthcare and private healtcare.
Well, it's not the Great Depression and probably on paper we could raise taxes and it wouldn't be a problem, but a "tax increase" scares a lot of people (unreasonably, IMO) and so it wouldn't pass.
One way to circumvent this is to not make a net increase but to first strip away existing, unnecessary programs or taxes, reappropriate money, etc. Housecleaning, in other words.
It might not be a great depression because the economy isn't that bad, but the debt part is huger then ever before.
War would, in all likelihood, break out. The question is whether it would be a civil war, or a retaliation against China, or both. It doesn't cost that much money to push the big red button.
True, true. My point was more along the lines of neither thing happening because of the threat of it happening. Trade, economics and debt is more or less destroying the usefullness of a large military. Standard warfare is rare to say the least between industrialized nations. Conflicts are mostly minor and usually best solved by coallition forces.
But are you Pirates? Image is everything.
Perhaps I should dress like a pirate when I go voulenteering at the campaign booths
Congratulations, you just used very particular assertions as evidence for an overly broad assertion. Furthermore, even if the particular assertions were true, the broad assertion wouldn't necessarily follow.
Do that again and our discussion is over. Permanently.
If you thinks that his criteria were bad it would probably be more constructive to argue why they were bad and perhaps even propose your own improved criteria instead of avoid the issue and being a dramaqueen about it.
....what?
He said that the large differences between poor and rich in the US is a product of the social policies, laws and welfare programs run by the US government. Clearer?
The poorest of the poor are covered FREE nationwide by the various Medicaid programs. Those who (for no apparent reason) refrain from applying for Medicaid often end up flocking to the various free clinics, at least here in New York State where we have quite a few.
And everyone who applies for medicaid gets it? Do medicaid cover all their medical expenses?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Einstein »
Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism -how passionately I hate them!
Quote from Nietzsche »
The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.
[thread=41221][my extendo sig][/thread] [thread=56664][moderator helpdesk][/thread] [Pen and Paper Inn]
Just add me on msn if you have any questions or just want to talk
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
But the people seem to be happy, so what does it matter?
The only ones that do are illegal but that is a different thread. Again it all depends on the issue. Your government supports them therefore your numbers are kinda bogus. If they are not working and contributing and living off the system then they are contributing to poverty.
We have those that do that here. they come here and the first thing they do is sign up for welfare. then sit down and live off the work of others. Then we have others that don't. they work hard and contribute and become very successful business people.
we use to have a pretty high standard to get into this country we don't anymore we just let whoever and whatever in.
Sorry i should have made myself more clear. Government is trying to pass laws one what firms can pay as bonuses to their employee's and they are trying to cap CEO pay and everything else. this was my fault.
Evidently you don't read the actual reports. While there are some issues with insurance companies it is worse with government. A year to see a doctor or a specialist. People can't get some drugs because of the expense even though it would save their life.
The cancer drugs that are out there that can up survival rates by 80+% they cannot get because the government doesn't want to foot the bill. Guess what those people get that treatment here.
I don't have to wait a year to see a doctor. I don't have to wait a year for surgery.
I don't have some government agency going sorry we ran out of funds and well you will have to deal with it until next budget cycle.
Sorry government healthcare doesn't work hence why european countries are pulling away from it. They can't afford the cost anymore.
I am for healthcare reform and straightening out the mess that is insurance but not with government control. again this is a different thread. PS the government has yet to run anything correctly.
The bush deficit was less than half of what it is right now. Up until 2008 bush had shrank the deficit to 161 billion dollars.
Correction they don't need to raise taxes they need to cut spending. If they cut spending they would have the money.
Raising taxes more so in a hurt economy just does more damage.
Everytime taxes are cut for businesses and people the federal government brings in more money.
sorry nan but the poor in this country qualify for a slew of government programs. they get free food, free rent, free utitlities, a check at the month based on the size of their family etc... they have to go sign up for it.
The system however is meant to keep them there not get them out. That is government control for you.
Everyone in this country can get healtcare no matter what. So all the reports running around are BS. The problem is how it is setup and needs to be changed. We don't need government to do it. It was government that screwed up the healthcare industry to begin with. Why should we rely on them to fix it.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Yes ofcourse, we have both type of people here. But the thing is that immigrants here do not contribute more per capita to poverty then norwegians.
That you are doing it badly does not mean the system itself is bad. I can get a doctors appointment today if I need one. If I need surgery or other treatment I get it within a couple of days or a week. Waiting here is only for things that are not important to do at once and that takes up a lot of resources so its not the common thing.
Also, we don't get denied treatment either because of prohibitive cost. There does exist a technical limit on how much money there is point in using, but I think it is at about 500k a year per person and no surgeries or medications cost that much. And that is just for pure hospitalstuff. Things you need in ways of accsessories to deal with disabilities and such (electric wheelchairs, homehelp, computers, etc) come in addition to that. Myself I probably get medical treatment for about 30-40k a year because of my several chronic conditions and I get aid for education and stuff for even more. The thing is that they don't weigh cost in the same way. Here it about wether you need it or not, the cost is not the important factor (ofcourse within reason and medical opinion).
It doesn't work like that here either. Which is why our hospitals go over budget all the time
Afford the cost? We use less money per capita on our healtcare system then your government uses on yours and we have far wider coverage.
Then perhaps you need to fix your government Our government runs our schools, our hospitals, our police, our firefighters, our elder homes and lots of other things. And considering our booming economy, extremely high standard of living, and all other statistics I must say they are doing one hell of a job. Same thing can be said for the governments of New Zealand, Canada, Ireland, Sweden, Denmark, etc.
[thread=41221][my extendo sig][/thread] [thread=56664][moderator helpdesk][/thread] [Pen and Paper Inn]
Just add me on msn if you have any questions or just want to talk
the fact that they are trying to spend a trillion dollars and it isn't even going to cover the people that they want to cover says quite a bit.
not to mention the thousands more that will lose their coverage and be on the government plan.
they can't pay for what they are doing now.
their only choice at this point is to raise my taxes to pay for a service that i will not use which is less money for me and my family to support itself on.
yea we do need to straighten out our government and stop them from meddling in our lives.
I seriously doubt that. i very seriously doubt you can get the cancer drugs that we can get here. some of them cost 40K for treatments. i doubt your government run healthcare system will pay for that.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Yeah, and other governments are not the US government. I will agree that other countries gov't health care runs fine for the most part, with exceptions for certain countries(i hear a lot of bad about the Canadian system). However, our government manages to not run any program efficiently, again part of having 300 million constituents spread over a area that is incredibly massive makes for more bureaucratic nonsense to cover the same objective.
Something I ABSOLUTLY agree with. If I where anywhere near in charge, I would want to raise taxes and cut spending. While i agree with mystery we need to cut spending, its more than just that as our deficit is too large.
So you mean to tell me in your country of 5 million no one has trouble getting food? Also remember our levels of consumption are different. The average American no having enough to eat is far different than the average European... because we are fat.
I have a suggestion for you. You know how Bush lied about WMD's? Thats how big the lies in Michael Moore films are. If you quote numbers from him it makes you a sheep. I have no idea how he is viewed outside of the US but hear a lot of people trust anything they hear without doing any fact checking, thats what allows MM to do well.
So take out the oil industry, and to fund all these wonderful government programs taxes increase massively? Neat how that works. Also how much of last years GDP increase was based off record high OIL prices?
The merger proposal was announced in December 2006.[5] Under the rules of the EEA the merger was approved by the European Union on May 3, 2007[6] and by the Norwegian Parliament on June 8, 2007.[3] Statoil's shareholders hold 67.3% of the new company, with Norsk Hydro shareholders owning the remaining 32.7%.[6] The Norwegian Government, the biggest shareholder in both Statoil and Norsk Hydro, holds 62.5% of the company.
Obviously as a resident I take your information over wikipedia but just thought i would point this out.
Thats not true about our povery level to my understanding. They are counted in our population counts as a general rule.
Yes i am the same guy who trades/sells on MOTL AND Wizards of the Coast and i trade on POJO.
What about our system would not scale upwards? Be spesific. And yes, your government is ****ing it up. Most other governments with socialized healtcare are not.
As I said, the only limit to cost is about 500k a year which is only a theoretical limit really. I have never ever heard of anyone not getting treatment that is availible. And if for some reason we can not offer the treatment here we pay for the person to go to another country to get it done. Ofcourse, we don't just throw money at things. I for example did try a cheaper and more common drug for my arthritis at first. When it did not work as I wanted it to they moved on to the more expensive drugs that cost about 20k a year. Anyone with arthritis can get that drug if they need it.
And as far as spending less money, yes we do. I don't have the statistics at hand but if you don't believe me I can always find them for you.
Well, aren't you all for giving the states responsibility? Then just make the states handle it individually?
Noone should have trouble getting food no. If someone has then it is their own fault for not managing their money. But even if they manage to do that once in a while they can go to the social offices and they will give them food. Though I am sure that some people refuse to do so because they find it demeaning, but that is their own choice. And I somehow find it unlikely that that the fat people of the US are the ones that have trouble getting food
Relax, I would never quote numbers from his films I quotes numbers from wikipedia and nationamaster mainly.
As for MM he is viewed in perhaps a bit too good light in the rest of the world and while I agree that he does lie way to much I do think that he points his fingers at important subjects. Not saying that he is always right, just that they are important.
Actually, the record high gdp increase was according to economists caused by an unusually high consumer demand, but yes it will go down to more normal levels this year.
And no, our welfare is not powered by oil. We actually save up all our oil money and we only spend 4% of the interest on the oil. This is to not get a huge inflation by pumping all the money into the economy. It also makes sure we are not dependent on oil.
Yes, I know this. This is correct. What I said was mostly taken from the same wikipedia article. But as said, privatizing such companies is a continiuing process that doesn't happen overnight.
I won't say this for sure, but as far as I know they are not counted because it would be guesswork. We (and you) only have estimates on the number of illegals and how theyre economy is.
[thread=41221][my extendo sig][/thread] [thread=56664][moderator helpdesk][/thread] [Pen and Paper Inn]
Just add me on msn if you have any questions or just want to talk
That is pretty damn impressive.
And if we are going by best, why are we ignoring military superiority?
America is with out a doubt has the most dominate military in the world.
Seriously this argument seems to be you defining what is best by what you feel is best and it happens to be what Norway is best at and ignoring the weakness of Norway, like a state church, as not really part of the culture.
America has the highest nominal GDP of sovereign nations, has a PPP based GDP in the top 10 as I said early against countries it dwarfs in size, population, and diversity, a military that would defeat any other country.
BTW what parties did Norway ellect to the EU? I know conservatives and ultra conservatives did well in most of europe did Norway follow suit?
This is true. I was pointing out population differences in size to space etc. Not pure numbers as mystery is.
Yeah our healthcare costs are pretty outrageous gov't based or otherwise.
Yeah that might work with the feds funding it. The problem is they need federal money to fund the programs since most states dont tax. which will need oversight etc etc useless bureaucracy.
Much like immigrants we also spit on poor people on a regular basis. Everytime i go to wal mart I make it a personal mission to spit at the homeless.... only wait... ive never seen a homeless person in my life. So essentially what you are saying is people there are hungry because the dont go to the places with food... thats exactly what happens here.
Read the above... also QUITE USING MOVIES AS RESEARCH TOOLS :facepalm:... that isnt just aimed at you... watch dirty harry sometime we all talk like he does and shoot the biggest magnum gun at our enemies.
Yes i am the same guy who trades/sells on MOTL AND Wizards of the Coast and i trade on POJO.
Well, because there is no agreement on that being a good thing to rate by. In fact, many people are of the opinion that a big military is bad for a country.
Well, yes, I define what is best in my opinion, but I am quite interested in hearing what other people think is best and why they think so. Also, I do in no way ignore Norway's weaknesses, such as the state church. However, I also pointed out earlier, that while we do have a State church and the US don't, religion still is far more integrated with the government in the US then it is here and Religion is far, far larger issue in the US then here. Norway is after all one of the worlds most secular countries.
Well, yes this is all true. However, I think that it is not unfair to compare EU or at least Eurozone with with the US and then its not that big a difference after all. Also, Canada is not far behind on the GDP PPP per capita so you are not the only large country doing well. And the differences aren't that big up in the top. You have to go all the way down to 37th place to find someone with half that of the american gdp ppp per capita (saudi arabia)
Norway is not a part of EU. If we did vote we would probably vote for moderate/liberal parties.
I'll easily admit that people here, including myself, is probably too much biased by movies and such when it comes to poverty. But statistics also do say that 2% of the poor (which is about 0,4% of the population) often goes hungry. Imo that is more then just not chosing to eat or similar. I do not however have such detailed statistics about Norway to compare with, but from personal experience I am quite sure that they are lower.
[thread=41221][my extendo sig][/thread] [thread=56664][moderator helpdesk][/thread] [Pen and Paper Inn]
Just add me on msn if you have any questions or just want to talk
And it is a little bit of a what if scenario, but in this day and age we take for granted that there wont be a massive conflict because people know that its going to end up being a war no one wins because the U.S. military will beat the side its not on and the non-U.S. side could be forced to use nuclear weapons as its only reproach.
In a sense it forced the game to go to the nuclear level and no one, and I dont even think Kim Jong Il willing to play that game.
Also canada has what? A tenth of the population, its pretty homogenous compared to America and its not spread being centered mostly in the south in Quebec and Vancouver areas.
Also I dont think religion tieing to politicals like it does in America is a bad thing, I'm all for giving onto cesear what is cesears but if government loses the moralilty that religion provides it can be bad.
I think the U.S. has struck a nice balance not a christian state but also not turned into, and I love you dutchies so dont be too offended, into the Netherlands where their views on amoralilty have become just as tyrannical.
And you really have to experience the whole America before you can start comparing it, I havent and I am an american thats been to every state. The two party system might not give everyone a voice but it has to be that way since there are so many voices.
Parlimantary systems even in relatively homogenous places like Europe have problems with having to form coalitions to do stuff, imagine it in America with soooo many competing intrests. The only country that I can think of and its not a great comparison is India.
And that brings me to another point, yes we have social issues that are problems but compared to the other country that is as diverse as us we are lightyears ahead of it. I mean really; India has what I would consider slavery as present struggle in that the caste system even though outlawed is actively practiced.
Do you think an untouchable could be elected in India?
And your not part of E.U.? I didnt know that, why not?
Also I would venture to say most Americans love their country even though they might not agree with everything it does, and part of this comes from the fact that well people, you crazy liberals out there , get really upset they say they want to move to Canada, a country thats nearly identical to America.
And unless your really cynical and think its brainwashed masses what else really matters?
The US military isn't THAT almighty. Yes it is powerfull, but the combined EU armies are pretty comparable in many ways. Also, economics is a much bigger part of it. Foreign countries like China could destroy the American economy if it so chose. With the economy in a complete collapse the US military might would not count for much.
Yes, that is true, they do have a lot less people, but the diversity is about the same.
Well, morality does not come inheritly from religion. And I think any country that elects its leaders based on religious preferences has religion way to much mixed up with politics. It reminds me more of certain muslim countries then most other western countries.
A nice balance? most of the population wouldn't vote for a non-religious president. 90% of the population is religious. You have put god on your money, in your laws, etc, etc.
And how is Dutch views on "amorallity" tyrannical? Please explain.
********. Have you seen the system for the EU parliament? There was an election recently and it doesn't work the same way as the US even with twice the amount of voters. Each persons vote in each country matters. In Sweden for example the Swedish "Pirate Party" that fights for digital rights and such they got 4-6% of the Swedish votes or such. That was enough for 1 seat in the parliament.
That is a really bad reason. Compare with European Parliment which is larger and more diverse then the US. And yes, they do form coalitions. That is not a bad thing. For example here the current government is a coalition of 3 parties that are center/left. One party has 35ish %, one has 10ish and one has 6ish. They form a block government that work together, but how the power inside works depends on their relative size differences. That way over half the country is represented in government and the power differences inside the government are a representation of what the people voted. Also, why do you think the US is so much more diverse then Europe which has twice the population and twice the area?
You really think comparing the US to India is better then comparing it to Norway?
Because we don't want to We have had public votes on it several times and it has always been no, though not by a huge majority. As for now I think it is about 50/50 and I believe it will be taken up again as a political issue sometime the next 10 years or so. The no-sayers put up issues such as soverignity, national interests, trade, etc. I tend to agree as the Norwegian economy is on such a different level then the EU.
Lol, yes us crazy liberals with our ideas of personal freedom, social justice, growing open economies, low poverty and other such abominations
And how is Canada nearly identical to the US?
[thread=41221][my extendo sig][/thread] [thread=56664][moderator helpdesk][/thread] [Pen and Paper Inn]
Just add me on msn if you have any questions or just want to talk
So you think you would be aware on the street just by seeing someone? I mean we are talking 1 in 250 people have trouble getting food. Also we arent talking about stomachs expanded from protein difference hunger. This is America, not Africa. Also "mo that is more then just not chosing to eat or similar." That is kind of unfair since this entire time we have been comparing based on capita, now your changing the parameters.
Yes i am the same guy who trades/sells on MOTL AND Wizards of the Coast and i trade on POJO.
Oh I am still talking per capita, but as I said, it is hard to compare such details as I don't have those data for Norway. However, subjectivly from what I know about the Norwegian system I think its hard to measure here because the margin of error would simply be larger then the actual number.
But yes, homelessness is probably easier to compare. about 0,1% of Norwegians are homeless. Why these people are homeless is a good question, and its mostly people that have fallen through the social system and security nets. Everyone no matter what has a right to a place to live. Though, from what I have read a large part of the homeless in Norway are actually people in prison that have moved out of their apartments before going to jail. They count for homeless people somehow
Total Number
the decrease is ofcourse very good, but the differences are still pretty large.
[thread=41221][my extendo sig][/thread] [thread=56664][moderator helpdesk][/thread] [Pen and Paper Inn]
Just add me on msn if you have any questions or just want to talk
What, do you want us to start a list of all the ways in which Canada and the US don't differ? Similar historical experiences and, especially in modernity, massive cultural exchange have resulted in very similar countries. Take a typical American, transport him to a major Canadian city, and give him some sort of mental block so that he doesn't notice the superficial things like all the maple leaves and signs saying "Bank of Toronto", and it might take him a while to realize he's not in the US. Try the same experiment with Australia, much less Norway, and he'll catch on much faster.
Of course, for many American liberals threatening to move to Canada, this is part of the attraction: you can disown the American government without really leaving the culture you're familiar with.
Article.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Also for the ley person at least in America religion and up upbringing (which is primarily religion) is where they get their morality Id venture to say most of the world area wise works that way.
The Executive is both the figure head and executor of America, so most americans want a President that shares the same values. Americans are very religious, unless your saying that being religious is bad which I dont think you are.
Europe is more homogenus then America though, most people are caucasian and share a common (albeit nasty war filled) history. I mean just look at the bios for any European country and compare it to the bio of america.
Also though the EU is big step forward towards an actual formal country its not, it doesnt have the same kind of governing authority of a sovereign nation. So do you think it would be a good thing for the democrats to have to cow tow to the pirate party so it can maintain its majority.
The weakness of those forms, is that once it becomes factionilized enough a radical group gains a massive amount of pull, now ask yourself would it be okay if the Norweigan conservative party had to cow tow to one of the nearly white supremist groups that got seats like in the EU from Britian?
The Dutch are not happy about the large groups of conservative Islamists that are imigrating into the country and parties have sprung up, I believe a house member? was even in america doing interviews on how the Islamist beliefs were undermining the Netherlands ad nauseum.
I also said India wasn't the greatest example because of its poor nature, but it is a country with similar factionalism amongst its ethnicity.
And how can I say Canada is nearly identical to the U.S? Because I lived right over the border in Calais, ME and Seattle. And had many Canadian friends and visited almost everything except the Ice Planet known as Hoth.... I mean the North West territories. The culture is nearly identical to the U.S. They have to have quotas on what gets put on the TV because the authentic Canadian culture would disapear
Also I would like an apology for Hagar the damn Viking has been clogging up the comics for ages while good stuff like the Farside and Boondocks are gone. And is it true its illegal to go bankrupt in Norway?
This might be true, but then again, nukes, diplomacy, nato and economics make any such scenario where it would matter highly unlikley.
And? Morals come from culture. Religion is a part of culture. Cultures with little religion still have morals.
Good values and being religious is not the same thing. And as for the inherent goodness of religion that is hardly a discussion worth taking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_ethnic_groups
Try again. Europe is no more homogeneous then Europe.
Still, they do decide upon laws, run the economy, trade, etc. When it solidifies its military and creates a common constitution then it will be more or less just as much a sovereign country as the US was supposed to be when it first was created.
And no the smaller parties doesn't need to be cow towed like that. Minority governments are also possible.
I do not view it as a weakness, I view it is a nessecery result of democracy. However, I also believe that those kind of views can be defeated through openness, debate and education.
Sure, with a lot of muslims immigrating to all over Europe it creates tensions and issues as their conservative views merge with Europes mostly liberal views. However, I don't see what this has to do with the Dutch "tyrranical" view on "amorality" as you call it.
Uhm, why would it be illegal?
But yes as far as the Canada issue is concerned I'm gonna leave that one dead. I do not know enough about the subject.
[thread=41221][my extendo sig][/thread] [thread=56664][moderator helpdesk][/thread] [Pen and Paper Inn]
Just add me on msn if you have any questions or just want to talk
The people in Nazi Germany and Communist China seemed to be happy, but that's because the unhappy ones weren't invited to the photo shoot.
To put it lightly.
Or border-drawing, famously demonstrated in the Balkans or the Middle East. If the demographic changes are voluntary, say, by immigration, you have fewer (but not zero) problems.
It's relative. To an American, since you're from Sweden, you're a liberal. Even if among Swedish opinions, yours is a conservative one.
All smaaaaallll countries. To be fair, a good argument could be made for letting states handle it, since most individual states are close to European countries in population, if not smaller. I think, actually, that Canada does this with its provinces; they fund low-population provinces so that everyone has the same budget.
I'm sure that Washington state or Colorado, as I may have said before, could do just as well as Norway et. al. in public health care. Education could use a reform or three, and specifically not throwing more money at it.
The current issue is, should we raise taxes during an economic slump?
"Oh no, we're out of cupcakes!" To be fair, when I visited Europe it seemed like all the breakfast cereal was chocolate.
The biggest one (well, more an omission than outright lie) was the cheap drugs in Cuba thing. That drugs in Cuba are cheap does not address the fact that American pharma companies made the drugs. The problem is more our insurance system which inflates drug prices.
As it gets bigger, you have to run a tighter ship. And to be fair, 5 million to 300 million is a 60x increase. This is not insignificant.
Also our political process is... how can I put this... not very efficient.
A very solid plan. You wouldn't want to repeat the mistakes of Spain when it brought back all that gold from the Americas... now that was a depression.
Yes, we can buy more stuff. But is that good?
Because that's a complicated issue. At best, we can say that military superiority is not-bad.
Actually, it's an arguable point. We'd probably "win" in any conflict, but at what cost...?
Right. Ideally, Congress could come up with a basic framework for a public plan that states would be free to adopt individually, adding whatever is necessary or fund-able. Decentralize, decentralize, decentralize, but keep a common thread. I think the biggest necessity is that anyone should be able to get treatment if they really need it.
But an American citizen only needs the security of the American military if he's somewhere where he could feel unsecure. And really, why would I walk into a warzone? And as for securing "national interests" and foreign intervention, these points are eminently true. The problem remains, who decides these interests, and who does the intervention benefit.
I really don't see how "because we can" is a good justification for anything.
Er... no. What morality? Oftentimes the same people that preach morality side with the people who want to exorcise that nebulous demon, "welfare," and conveniently forget that little parable, "it is easier for a camel pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to pass into Heaven."
So "amorality" is "stratospheric levels of tolerance"? I guess the inverse is true: "morality" draws the line somewhere.
You're telling this to the Norwegian and the Swede, whose parliaments host six parties or more...?
It would certainly be lively. And nonpermanent coalitions would be ideal! We'd actually see clearly what side of the argument people were on, for a change.
Indeed. After the H-bomb is the D-bomb... the debt-bomb. God forbid the Chinese government would call in the debt.
On the contrary; that kind of desperation breeds rash action, and it would be disastrous for anyone involved. Look at, say, Rome.
And I would so register for the Pirate Party. (For the record, I also agree with their platform, not just their name. :D)
I think he was saying that it doesn't work to have so many interests. Then again, India has a bazillion more problems than America on the basic level.
Or even leaving the country all that much; 75% of Canadians live within 90 miles of the American border.
Well... 1) yes, this would probably be true... eventually; 2) this isn't really a pissing contest; 3) we're allied.
I dunno, I'd say most of the world isn't as rules-lawyerish about religion as many followers of the Abrahamic religions are. Japan is a good example; most people are religious, but they probably couldn't say whether they're Shinto or Buddhist. They probably do both (a rare case of coexistence, since the two religions are quite synergistic).
I am. Stupid decisions are made on faith more often than brilliant decisions are... except in the movies.
Ahem. Mostly Caucasian != homogeneous. I believe few people are like "hey, I'm Caucasian, you're Caucasian, let's do Caucasian things together." Europe is a hodgepodge of ethnicities (under the general banner of Caucasian)... this is particularly evident in... well, history, but also the division of the former Soviet bloc countries. The Balkan states.
Well, it's illegal to commit suicide in some places here...
EDIT: Wow this is long.
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
From what i understood in that article, the chronically homeless is what was being discussed. IE the 1.2% is the people who are homeless for long periods of time. Since yall have limited public housing, but with an apparent time limit on how long it can be stayed in that puts your chronically homeless at a MUCH MUCH higher percentage than our own. Also people who stay at homeless shelters, are counted amongst our homeless. They have shelter in other words.
Easy yes, watch films from the 80s and 90s, and you would think every alley is a homeless convocation.
Yes i am the same guy who trades/sells on MOTL AND Wizards of the Coast and i trade on POJO.
Yes, I think we agree very much in this. Some things tends to get cluttered up in bureaucracy and corruption when its over such large areas and such large populations.
The thing is that this is not an economic slump. Very large debts and deficits that will take decades of high taxes to correct.
Well, yes, I agree. This would explain a difference in the cost-effectiveness. It doesn't explain coverage though, neither why having the government run it would be bad or wouldn't work.
Well, yes, that is a good point, but I do not think that the US would be able to keep its military up and running if as you put it China used the d-bomb.
The party I am a member of has many of the same opinions as the Pirate Party
Haha, yeah well true
I did not understand it as such as talking about chronicly homeless people. And the limited public housing is not exactly true. Yes there is ofcourse limited government owned buildings at their disposal, but they will put them in a hotel room if they have to. They have no other choice as by law everyone has the right to a place to live. Also, the thing about the time limit is simply not true or very outdated information. Also, if you find a place to live yourself that is cheap then the state will pay for it.
edit: the information in the article is 11 years old
edit: A little more research and I managed to piece together some info from various news papers. There are approxmiatly 0,12% homeless, but the classification of homeless includes anyone without a permanent resident. This means that people that are given temporary housing by the governments (because of lack of houses) are added into this and it also includes people that have short leases on their house (6 months or less) so it also includes certain season workers which certainly don't classify as homeless with a more common definition of the word.
[thread=41221][my extendo sig][/thread] [thread=56664][moderator helpdesk][/thread] [Pen and Paper Inn]
Just add me on msn if you have any questions or just want to talk
Notice where i pointed out just that as well. We also have a HUGE migrant worker population in the california areas etc.
BTW NY contains a very disproportionate amount of homeless with 33k. HOWEVER they have the same laws you do, MUST BE PROVIDED HOUSING. Can we put this discussion to rest any time soon?
Yes i am the same guy who trades/sells on MOTL AND Wizards of the Coast and i trade on POJO.
Well, it's not the Great Depression and probably on paper we could raise taxes and it wouldn't be a problem, but a "tax increase" scares a lot of people (unreasonably, IMO) and so it wouldn't pass.
One way to circumvent this is to not make a net increase but to first strip away existing, unnecessary programs or taxes, reappropriate money, etc. Housecleaning, in other words.
The common argument against it involves favoring a multiplicity of competing solutions over one monolithic one. Personally I don't see any reason why a publicly-funded one shouldn't exist, at least as a back-up plan for people who can't afford really good health-care. But actually a state-by-state system of public healthcare could probably do much better, since you would then have fifty different policies being tried at once. If one or two states' programs proved to be extremely popular, then more states would adopt those policies and you'd have a generally better system.
Corporations complain because they say that government could just impose restrictions on them, can operate at a loss, etc. Which really masks a fear of competition on their part, and a lack of good sportsmanship.
War would, in all likelihood, break out. The question is whether it would be a civil war, or a retaliation against China, or both. It doesn't cost that much money to push the big red button.
But are you Pirates? Image is everything.
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
I agree which is why i said in a year or so. I am a true conservative(not a republican) so im in favor of raising taxes and lower budgets atm because tbh we seem to have this illusion that our money is safe from hyper inflation and massive devaluation. Its just that, an illusion.
According to recent pools over 50% of the public believes that the govt. owning the car companies is going to hurt Ford a lot since they will make unfavorable laws for Ford.
Yes i am the same guy who trades/sells on MOTL AND Wizards of the Coast and i trade on POJO.
Congratulations, you just used very particular assertions as evidence for an overly broad assertion. Furthermore, even if the particular assertions were true, the broad assertion wouldn't necessarily follow.
Do that again and our discussion is over. Permanently.
....what?
This is the LAST time I will say this.
In the State of New York, every child whether an illegal immigrant or not can get health insurance regardless of the income of their parents. The premium cost is on a sliding scale from $0 USD to a max of less than $100 USD per month through a program called Child Health Plus. Other States offer roughly similar programs, such as Montana's which reaches a rare max of $215. The higher costs are only required from families that can afford them.
The poorest of the poor are covered FREE nationwide by the various Medicaid programs. Those who (for no apparent reason) refrain from applying for Medicaid often end up flocking to the various free clinics, at least here in New York State where we have quite a few.
Older persons are generally covered by Medicare.
Veteran's have their own benefits, and of course, so do the politicians.
There is definitely a place where we're having trouble with health insurance, and that is a rather specific demographic.
It has to do with people between childhood and senior citizenship who are both incapable of getting insurance through a job AND they must be somewhere floating between poor and wealthy where they can neither get free coverage, nor can they afford individual insurance.
In effect, these are specific people that might afford their own care just fine if they were not simultaneously forced by the government to subsidize coverage for the poor, the elderly and veterans to such a tremendous degree. Additionally all sorts of state regulations and requirements for health insurance providers hamper this group further by driving up the cost with mandating coverage for unnecessary procedures, making acceptance guaranteed (which lets people wait until they need insurance to purchase it, ultimately defeating the entire idea of the thing)
I have no doubt that we will, in time, deal with these matters. Unfortunately though, the crisis has been pretty damn misrepresented.
After hearing what I've been hearing, If I was living some place like Canada I might think that in the U.S. the poor can't get treatments when that's actually the opposite of the truth. The poor and the wealthy are the lucky of this system.
This is true. However, the big problem I see is all the private hospitals you have. We have more or less only public hospitals and this lets us keep the wages of doctors at a high, but not extraordinarily so level. When you private hospitals the wages get pushed up there and the good doctors leaves for private hospitals. This leads to a large gap between the standard of public healthcare and private healtcare.
It might not be a great depression because the economy isn't that bad, but the debt part is huger then ever before.
True, true. My point was more along the lines of neither thing happening because of the threat of it happening. Trade, economics and debt is more or less destroying the usefullness of a large military. Standard warfare is rare to say the least between industrialized nations. Conflicts are mostly minor and usually best solved by coallition forces.
Perhaps I should dress like a pirate when I go voulenteering at the campaign booths
If you thinks that his criteria were bad it would probably be more constructive to argue why they were bad and perhaps even propose your own improved criteria instead of avoid the issue and being a dramaqueen about it.
He said that the large differences between poor and rich in the US is a product of the social policies, laws and welfare programs run by the US government. Clearer?
And everyone who applies for medicaid gets it? Do medicaid cover all their medical expenses?
[thread=41221][my extendo sig][/thread] [thread=56664][moderator helpdesk][/thread] [Pen and Paper Inn]
Just add me on msn if you have any questions or just want to talk