Pretty much if you make sub 25k a year you will qualify for medicare..
Couple of restrictions like not being allowed to have 2-3k in savings etc
But what about the people that are turned down insurance from insurance companies? Are they gonna never be able to save money?
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
But what about the people that are turned down insurance from insurance companies? Are they gonna never be able to save money?
Yeah see thats one of the BIG problems with our culture... I have conspiracy theories on this.
Basically the American economy=COMPLETELY about consumerism.
Any US welfare program has limits on savings(retirement is not counted in this since you paid in for it). Disability/medical services have a 2-3k savings limit. In fact my fiancee is disabled and had a savings account when she was younger. They talked about taking her off SSI because your are expected to spend everything they send you within 3 months of receiving it(basically its being used as stimulus). What i believed happened is that while the amount you receive monthly is pegged to inflation, they dont peg the amount of resources you can own to inflation so we are still working on a decade or two ago what was a good sized savings account, whereas now 2k isnt ****.
Also generally people who are turned down are disabled. Disabled are all covered through another medical program.
Yeah see thats one of the BIG problems with our culture... I have conspiracy theories on this.
Basically the American economy=COMPLETELY about consumerism.
Any US welfare program has limits on savings(retirement is not counted in this since you paid in for it). Disability/medical services have a 2-3k savings limit. In fact my fiancee is disabled and had a savings account when she was younger. They talked about taking her off SSI because your are expected to spend everything they send you within 3 months of receiving it(basically its being used as stimulus). What i believed happened is that while the amount you receive monthly is pegged to inflation, they dont peg the amount of resources you can own to inflation so we are still working on a decade or two ago what was a good sized savings account, whereas now 2k isnt ****.
Well yes that is a problem. Here we are encouraged to save money and I believe that is one the reasons our economy is reasonably stable in this international financial crisis. We have an economy that encourages saving up money for for example buying a house. A government program called BSU gives youth a way to save money to buy a house. As a bonus for saving money through this program they get tax cuts of 20% of their savings and when they use the money to buy a house they get very good interest rates.
Also generally people who are turned down are disabled. Disabled are all covered through another medical program.
As far as I understood it you could get turned down or at least get a limited plan because of some disease you had before or similar. I have arthritis, add and bipolar myself and as far as I understand I would not get insurance.
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
Well yes that is a problem. Here we are encouraged to save money and I believe that is one the reasons our economy is reasonably stable in this international financial crisis. We have an economy that encourages saving up money for for example buying a house. A government program called BSU gives youth a way to save money to buy a house. As a bonus for saving money through this program they get tax cuts of 20% of their savings and when they use the money to buy a house they get very good interest rates.
As far as I understood it you could get turned down or at least get a limited plan because of some disease you had before or similar. I have arthritis, add and bipolar myself and as far as I understand I would not get insurance.
LOL man its amusing how some of the programs in Norway line up exactly with my economic views when others are so drastically different. We have an incredibly low savings rate int he US, in fact recently it went NEGATIVE... more money out of savings than in as a country. As a college student I am unable to do much saving atm however that will change once i get my education etc. I cannot stress enough how wracked our economy will be when people finally realize there credit card debt as a nation is too high.
As for the last part, you need a much more serious set of conditions than that to not receive health insurance through most plans. The problem this time is insurance is governed state to state so in some places it would be horrible for you and in others not etc. As a whole though i cant imagine they would turn you down. Now if you where going to have heart failure next week its understandable they would turn you down, however our nations hospitals(private inlcuded) are required to save your life.
BTW Nan thanks for the thread its been very enjoyable. It has reminded me of why I love my country and the problems i still see within it.
I hope you understand the only thing you're spouting is leftism. None of the countries that matter in the world today (China, Japan, United States, Russia, etc.) are "socialist" to the degree of Scandinavian countries.
I love how you state "nobody is saying the United States is the greatest country in the world" after saying "None of the countries that matter in the world today ." None of the countries that matter? I'm assuming you mean by that "countries who spend absurd amounts on their militaries".
Take Canada, for example. The people laud their countries as one of the most peaceful in the world and a stark contrast to the United States. But then they complain their "brilliant minds" flee down south... despite all the years of American bashing, a physician in Canada would rather be American than Canadian. Does this speak anything to you? The system you champion has a bias toward the low socioeconomic classes. Liberalism has no future in leading the world because none of the world's most powerful countries are liberal.
I'm Canadian, living in Detroit, a city with one of the highest crime rates in the United States. And I can tell you that this is simply not true. The Canadian health care system is imperfect (it's a long way from Norway's, to be sure)...but never at any point have I talked to any Canadian doctors who "wish to be American". And if they express distaste with US policies, it's totally irrelevant to their pay grade. Most Canadians I know would rather stay in Canada to get healthcare, because they don't want to go into debt. My mom's friend recently got treated for aggressive breast cancer, and didn't have to pay a cent. It's now cured. I can't imagine that worry free scenario happening over here. More like, "Here's the hospital bill, maybe you can pay it off in 5 years".
Collectively, the European Union has come influence but it's power is dwindling down year after year. No one will care what Europe thinks in 50 years. And America? We're Western by temperament and not "genetically". American and Western is slowly coming to mean radically different things.
I find it odd how you think the opinions of an entire continent will be irrelevant in 50 years. Last time I checked, the population of Europe was more than double that of the United States, and the main difference is that the EU doesn't play "world police". I don't understand why it keeps going back to power!
And? At the expense of everyone in the middle class and above. The middle class American does not live in poverty and to believe none of the impoverished deserve to be where they're at is naive. This reflects the extreme prejudice against the wealthy. You state there is no prejudice in your country... but?
Except, the United States has MILLIONS of homeless people. And the country of Norway has the second highest GDP-per-capita (higher than the US) and the third highest GDP (PPP) per capita in the world (higher than the US). It's got a mixed economy encouraging free market activity with lots of state ownership, but it seems to be doing well, since it's got the highest standard of living in the world. Norway has a very low unemployment rate (below 2%) which is more than I can say for the U.S. It enjoys a much smaller income inequality than the U.S. (Gini Coefficient), has some of the highest hourly wages in the world, and "continued oil and gas exports coupled with a healthy economy and substantial accumulated wealth lead to a conclusion that Norway will remain among the richest countries in the world in the foreseeable future."
Sounds better than the United States to me. What I'm trying to say here is that Norway has found a way for people to accumulate wealth the old fashioned way...in other words, there actually IS room for rich people...but they show that it isn't so much that there is an extreme prejudice against the wealthy so much as an extreme prejudice against huge, disgusting class disparities. They're a model in that, wow, it IS possible to be successful while not being patronizing to everyone born into misfortune!
Norway is a small country, you ultimately forget. The high GDP trend would not continue under a large geographically and demographically diverse country such as the United States.
See above. And don't confuse materialism with economic equality and lack of poverty.
So having less religion makes for more religious freedom? Does this even sound right to you?
Yes, because there is still freedom to practice religion in Norway, but for the large part its government is secularized. They rightly think religion shouldn't affect laws governing everyone and maintain the seperation of church and state. Freedom of religion also means choosing not to practice it at all. In a country like Norway, you would be encouraged to practice whatever religion you wish. The main difference is Norway doesn't tell people to "like it or leave", which is a common empty response conservatives sometimes use. Really, it's ok to disagree with your country and to not have a predominant religion affecting every decision.
I do not see your form of liberalism surviving in the future because it is too expensive, too materialistic (even if it is for a gracious cause).
Yeah, and the United States owing billions to China and being trillions in debt and basing everything on a credit charging system is a lifestyle that is fiscally responsible. And I'd rather use lots of money for a gracious cause than one that has caused nearly 5000 soldiers to die.
I for one would be very happy in Norway. They don't seem to be riddled with problems. They're a model country and he should be proud to live there. I'm not proud of the United States. We have a lot of work to do here.
Just a quick aside to burning paladins comment on america wiping the floor with europes military. That is just plainly not true and perhaps paladin hasnt considering how many countries are in europe. The combined might of russia, turkey, germany, england, france, italy, spain, ukraine etc is alot more then he seems to be imagining and is in fact closely comparable to the combined might of the US military.
Although I have not read most posts I just want to point out that there is no BEST country in the world. There is just different countries with different functionality. I am proud to be an American and I think that anyone living in a relatively free land is very, very, very, lucky. In the Middle East, people are killing in the name of Jihad; baseless, speculative faith-laden savagery. A place like North Korea with totalitarian rule, has the utmost brainwashed people. People can't even get on the internet there, or exercise their the right to their religion in most places(?), or do various things; and many believe this is how it should be! Even in China they can shut people off from getting on websites if they so choose to. I forgot who said it, but they had a quote along the lines of: "The best way to control people is to make them believe they are in control." Unfortunately, this is the democracy we live in, in America. But, we still have free will to change ourselves and it takes true imagination to look at our own decisions and say, "Oh man, I have been doing it wrong all the time. I thought I was in control but what I have been lead to believe I wanted, is not really what I want." As long as a person has access to internet, they may shed fallacies and lies- of the world, and of themselves. It is just now "hip" to do such a thing, when our grandparents were living under the influence of lame religions and kept from true knowledge. Not saying they were stupid, but the ability to educate ourselves nowadays, is 10 fold. So as long as you are able to be an individual, I say your country isnt that bad relatively, although countries like America are corrupt.
The USA is not the best at anything besides having the strongest military and most stable government.
First of all our government/economy is anything but stable right now. All it would take to completely f*** us is for China, a single country, to stop production of goods for the US. If they were followed by Mexico, even worse. Then were the Middle East to follow suit and quit giving us oil we would be so far up s*** creek without a paddle I doubt we could ever come back. We are essentially being held up by a handful of countries some of whom (China and Mid East) would probably not think twice about screwing us if we keep trying to screw them as we are now.
As for Military strength how many more wars can we spread the army across before we have to start up the draft? And what would that do to our country's morale and trust in government?
I guess what I'm trying to say is the US is no longer the best country in the world for any reason other than the fact that we claim to be. We are balanced on a very precarious ledge that is no doubt going to break sooner or later unless we get our s*** together and realize that we'd better step back.
Its one thing to be patriotic but completely different to say that any x country is the best country in the world. Also, quite a few of the OP's facts are messed up, and quite probably biased.
Also, what is this junk about the US having a low crime rate? That couldn't be less true.
There is a site called "nationmaster" that is a very useful tool for researching countries. I use it in my human geography class all the time. Now lets look at the various crime rates of the world.
Rapes http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap-crime-rapes
USA IS AGAIN NUMBER ONE ON THE LIST. Its true, we have more rapes here than other countries. Second on the list is south africa, but no, we nearly twice as many.
rapes is a little iffy since some countries due to the nature of there culture dont actually consider rape a crime(ive heard of a few European countries like this where its almost impossible to prove rape.)
Its one thing to be patriotic but completely different to say that any x country is the best country in the world. Also, quite a few of the OP's facts are messed up, and quite probably biased.
Also, what is this junk about the US having a low crime rate? That couldn't be less true.
There is a site called "nationmaster" that is a very useful tool for researching countries. I use it in my human geography class all the time. Now lets look at the various crime rates of the world.
Rapes http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap-crime-rapes
USA IS AGAIN NUMBER ONE ON THE LIST. Its true, we have more rapes here than other countries. Second on the list is south africa, but no, we nearly twice as many.
So as you can see, we are by no means low on the list of crimes, our crime rate is actually one of the highest in the world.
That is about as biased as possible.
Yes, U.S. ranks 5th in murder, but3rd in world population. Without per capita adjustment, everything you've said here loses any meaning. When adjusted per capita it is 24th. The difference between the per capita 5 (Russia) and the U.S. at 24 is enormous. (0.2 vs. 0.042)
Car theft per capita is 9.
Rapes per capita, again, 9.
Murders with firearms, 8 (though statistically far away from #1 South Africa and very much closer to most trailers)
*Total crimes per capita, 8* (Below U.K., Finland, Denmark)
So, why did you only talk about the overall figures when per capita makes such a difference?
Quote from fatguy poolshark »
rapes is a little iffy since some countries due to the nature of there culture dont actually consider rape a crime(ive heard of a few European countries like this where its almost impossible to prove rape.)
Just a quick aside to burning paladins comment on america wiping the floor with europes military. That is just plainly not true and perhaps paladin hasnt considering how many countries are in europe. The combined might of russia, turkey, germany, england, france, italy, spain, ukraine etc is alot more then he seems to be imagining and is in fact closely comparable to the combined might of the US military.
Russia is not part of the EU.
The Kennedy Aircraft Carrier squadron alone is probably enough to annihlate the standing forces of those countries by itself.
I love the quote from Futrama by Zap Brannagan along the lines of lets show them what a bloated military budget can do.
And thats part of my point, most EU countries dont devote that much money to their military budget and as such cant be expected to be a match for the U.S.
This threads problem as I stated earlier is the problem with who's the best QB of all time debates. What people consider the best is opinion based.
Also I would question if the European democracies and Japan would be able to focus on their social problems if for the past 60 years they had to worry about the Soviet Union with out U.S. providing a military umbrella.
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.
burning, the statement was europe, not the EU. russia is not part of asia is it? and feel free http://www.globalfirepower.com/navy-ships.asp to look up comparitive military strength and if you want, take the time to look at each category and add things up. you will plainly see that in most respects europe is quite close to the USA in power when combined.
Your right quiet close when combining the military strength of countries that are in some cases openly hostile to each other.
Russia is technically on both continents but yeah its pretty much European, but it doesnt have anything like NATO with western europe.
Also America would have the advantage even if all the european countries managed to band together since its operating solo vs many many different chiefs.
However my question still stands would the europeans states be so affluent with out the U.S. military pressence detering soviet expansion?
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.
I recently read a survey that named the happiest countries in the world. The OP should be happy to know that the Scandinavian countries are at the top of the list. So anyone that thinks Socialist countries are bad and Capitalist countries are good would probably benefit from reading about this survey. It helped me realize there are socialist countries that are run very well (Denmark, Netherlands) and ones that are run very poorly (India).
My country, a socialist country? That's a new one for me^^ We surely have a socialist party, but that is not in our government (it is in the opposition).
Well, from an American point of view, the Netherlands are somewhat socialist, with our healthcare system and extensive safety net for those unable to work.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
There wouldn't be such a stigma attached with the word Socialism if people did their research to see the difference between a Socialist economy and a Communist one.
There wouldn't be such a stigma attached to socialism in the US if right-wing think tanks hadn't conducted extensive propaganda campaigns on behalf of the ruling class.
Owners of banks, industry, business and political families. What were you expecting, people with powdered curly wigs and French accents?
No, but that's a much more fun mental image.
I don't think America is the best country. I don't believe in a best country, last I checked, this planet is round. I also don't think it's propaganda by the ruling class that causes this phenomenon. I think is just has to do with a cultural tradition of nationalism. Perhaps it has since been propagated by the rich and powerful, but I don't think it could be said to be the source of it.
Quote from Bill Hicks »
I'll tell you how we can solve patriotism right now. Replace the flag with the image of your parents ****ing.
There wouldn't be such a stigma attached to socialism in the US if right-wing think tanks hadn't conducted extensive propaganda campaigns on behalf of the ruling class.
Waging a 45-year Cold War against a communist dictatorship didn't help things, either.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Well, from an American point of view, the Netherlands are somewhat socialist, with our healthcare system and extensive safety net for those unable to work.
Also the extensive tolerance of what the right-wing calls "alternative lifestyles." I think of magic 'shrooms, they think of magic 'shrooms, pot, coke, and gay people having sex. But anyway, you guys are pretty chill about that stuff. Good on ya.
There wouldn't be such a stigma attached with the word Socialism if people did their research to see the difference between a Socialist economy and a Communist one.
To be fair, while Communism is pretty clearly a failed experiment, socialism is more an acquired taste. I don't think it meshes well with the "American way," for a wide variety of reasons, but if it works for Europe, great. Socialism is better (functionally and subjectively) when it's small, IMO.
There wouldn't be such a stigma attached to socialism in the US if right-wing think tanks hadn't conducted extensive propaganda campaigns on behalf of the ruling class.
Owners of banks, industry, business and political families. What were you expecting, people with powdered curly wigs and French accents?
*sigh* Come on, Tuss. How many people do you impress with this Howard-Zinn-esque leftism? It's not some vast conspiracy against socialists. For one thing, socialism is just a convenient scapegoat. Also it's not the patented Best System Ever (neither is capitalism, but IMO it's better on a large scale). And as Blinking Spirit pointed out...
How can you be at all aware of McCarthyism and dismiss the idea of a large-scale political campaign intended to demonise a system of thought as ridiculous?
But, er, it is ridiculous, as the last century has proven in at least three major cases. McCarthyism had little to do with real Communists and more to do with people McCarthy hated. Now, equating socialism with Communism has taken a little while longer, but I that was a bipartisan, Cold-War-driven effort. And as I said, it's not like it would do a lot of good over here anyway.
What exactly is so unbelievable about rich and powerful people using part of their considerable influence to vilify an ideology designed to benefit the common man over the wealthy?
That is Communism's intention, yes, but you know what they say about the road to Hell... maybe we should start an economics thread regarding this issue, but in short, central planning and such destroys the desire to work and leads to critical mismanagement.
Remember that we're talking about a country that has manufactured coups and overthrown democracies because those democracies didn't want to be beneficial to US business interests.
That's a separate issue, and I would be the first to denounce such actions, if you hadn't beaten me to it. But America isn't the only one who does this, just the biggest. Canada, actually, made a big show about its (heavily government subsidized) fishing industry as the Atlantic cod was being fished to extinction, even as scientists were pointing out declining quantity and quality of catches.
And are you really going to deny that corporations etc have enormous influence on policy? Have you ever heard of lobbyists? Campaign contributions? Do you have the slightest idea of how wealth is distributed among social groups? How can you know these things and yet deny that there is a ruling class?
The straw's flying a bit thick isn't it? Where in "this isn't a grand anti-socialist conspiracy" did I say "there are no corporate lobbyists"? I don't deny that there's a "ruling class" (although I would not use that term) but I give it a fraction of the weight you do. Social/political inertia aside, that there are rich and powerful people with leverage is becoming more immaterial, IMO.
That said, what would you do to "fix" this situation?
European countries are generally at most social-democratic. They don't really mind capitalism, to say the least. They're not hyper-capitalist like the US but that's not socialism.
lololol "hyper-capitalist." Not at all, sir. We subsidize and protect with the best of 'em (okay, maybe not the EU... half the budget to farm subsidy? Huh?). Hyper-capitalist would be... well, I dunno what it would be, because it would require some responsibility on every level from the individual to the federal. And that ain't gonna happen.
Would I be off base if I drew a parallel between your... um, view of American policy and your mention of American anti-communist hysteria?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do I Contradict Myself? Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Pretty much if you make sub 25k a year you will qualify for medicare..
Couple of restrictions like not being allowed to have 2-3k in savings etc
Yes i am the same guy who trades/sells on MOTL AND Wizards of the Coast and i trade on POJO.
But what about the people that are turned down insurance from insurance companies? Are they gonna never be able to save money?
[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
Yeah see thats one of the BIG problems with our culture... I have conspiracy theories on this.
Basically the American economy=COMPLETELY about consumerism.
Any US welfare program has limits on savings(retirement is not counted in this since you paid in for it). Disability/medical services have a 2-3k savings limit. In fact my fiancee is disabled and had a savings account when she was younger. They talked about taking her off SSI because your are expected to spend everything they send you within 3 months of receiving it(basically its being used as stimulus). What i believed happened is that while the amount you receive monthly is pegged to inflation, they dont peg the amount of resources you can own to inflation so we are still working on a decade or two ago what was a good sized savings account, whereas now 2k isnt ****.
Also generally people who are turned down are disabled. Disabled are all covered through another medical program.
Yes i am the same guy who trades/sells on MOTL AND Wizards of the Coast and i trade on POJO.
Well yes that is a problem. Here we are encouraged to save money and I believe that is one the reasons our economy is reasonably stable in this international financial crisis. We have an economy that encourages saving up money for for example buying a house. A government program called BSU gives youth a way to save money to buy a house. As a bonus for saving money through this program they get tax cuts of 20% of their savings and when they use the money to buy a house they get very good interest rates.
As far as I understood it you could get turned down or at least get a limited plan because of some disease you had before or similar. I have arthritis, add and bipolar myself and as far as I understand I would not get insurance.
[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
LOL man its amusing how some of the programs in Norway line up exactly with my economic views when others are so drastically different. We have an incredibly low savings rate int he US, in fact recently it went NEGATIVE... more money out of savings than in as a country. As a college student I am unable to do much saving atm however that will change once i get my education etc. I cannot stress enough how wracked our economy will be when people finally realize there credit card debt as a nation is too high.
As for the last part, you need a much more serious set of conditions than that to not receive health insurance through most plans. The problem this time is insurance is governed state to state so in some places it would be horrible for you and in others not etc. As a whole though i cant imagine they would turn you down. Now if you where going to have heart failure next week its understandable they would turn you down, however our nations hospitals(private inlcuded) are required to save your life.
BTW Nan thanks for the thread its been very enjoyable. It has reminded me of why I love my country and the problems i still see within it.
Yes i am the same guy who trades/sells on MOTL AND Wizards of the Coast and i trade on POJO.
I love how you state "nobody is saying the United States is the greatest country in the world" after saying "None of the countries that matter in the world today ." None of the countries that matter? I'm assuming you mean by that "countries who spend absurd amounts on their militaries".
I'm Canadian, living in Detroit, a city with one of the highest crime rates in the United States. And I can tell you that this is simply not true. The Canadian health care system is imperfect (it's a long way from Norway's, to be sure)...but never at any point have I talked to any Canadian doctors who "wish to be American". And if they express distaste with US policies, it's totally irrelevant to their pay grade. Most Canadians I know would rather stay in Canada to get healthcare, because they don't want to go into debt. My mom's friend recently got treated for aggressive breast cancer, and didn't have to pay a cent. It's now cured. I can't imagine that worry free scenario happening over here. More like, "Here's the hospital bill, maybe you can pay it off in 5 years".
I find it odd how you think the opinions of an entire continent will be irrelevant in 50 years. Last time I checked, the population of Europe was more than double that of the United States, and the main difference is that the EU doesn't play "world police". I don't understand why it keeps going back to power!
Except, the United States has MILLIONS of homeless people. And the country of Norway has the second highest GDP-per-capita (higher than the US) and the third highest GDP (PPP) per capita in the world (higher than the US). It's got a mixed economy encouraging free market activity with lots of state ownership, but it seems to be doing well, since it's got the highest standard of living in the world. Norway has a very low unemployment rate (below 2%) which is more than I can say for the U.S. It enjoys a much smaller income inequality than the U.S. (Gini Coefficient), has some of the highest hourly wages in the world, and "continued oil and gas exports coupled with a healthy economy and substantial accumulated wealth lead to a conclusion that Norway will remain among the richest countries in the world in the foreseeable future."
Sounds better than the United States to me. What I'm trying to say here is that Norway has found a way for people to accumulate wealth the old fashioned way...in other words, there actually IS room for rich people...but they show that it isn't so much that there is an extreme prejudice against the wealthy so much as an extreme prejudice against huge, disgusting class disparities. They're a model in that, wow, it IS possible to be successful while not being patronizing to everyone born into misfortune!
See above. And don't confuse materialism with economic equality and lack of poverty.
Yes, because there is still freedom to practice religion in Norway, but for the large part its government is secularized. They rightly think religion shouldn't affect laws governing everyone and maintain the seperation of church and state. Freedom of religion also means choosing not to practice it at all. In a country like Norway, you would be encouraged to practice whatever religion you wish. The main difference is Norway doesn't tell people to "like it or leave", which is a common empty response conservatives sometimes use. Really, it's ok to disagree with your country and to not have a predominant religion affecting every decision.
Yeah, and the United States owing billions to China and being trillions in debt and basing everything on a credit charging system is a lifestyle that is fiscally responsible. And I'd rather use lots of money for a gracious cause than one that has caused nearly 5000 soldiers to die.
I for one would be very happy in Norway. They don't seem to be riddled with problems. They're a model country and he should be proud to live there. I'm not proud of the United States. We have a lot of work to do here.
First of all our government/economy is anything but stable right now. All it would take to completely f*** us is for China, a single country, to stop production of goods for the US. If they were followed by Mexico, even worse. Then were the Middle East to follow suit and quit giving us oil we would be so far up s*** creek without a paddle I doubt we could ever come back. We are essentially being held up by a handful of countries some of whom (China and Mid East) would probably not think twice about screwing us if we keep trying to screw them as we are now.
As for Military strength how many more wars can we spread the army across before we have to start up the draft? And what would that do to our country's morale and trust in government?
I guess what I'm trying to say is the US is no longer the best country in the world for any reason other than the fact that we claim to be. We are balanced on a very precarious ledge that is no doubt going to break sooner or later unless we get our s*** together and realize that we'd better step back.
According to this study I should be deaf by now.
Banner made by: Spiderboy4 :o:o:o
It shouldn't be "dies"
It shouldn't be "is put into the graveyard from the battlefield"
It should be "is put into the graveyard from play"
Also, what is this junk about the US having a low crime rate? That couldn't be less true.
There is a site called "nationmaster" that is a very useful tool for researching countries. I use it in my human geography class all the time. Now lets look at the various crime rates of the world.
---------------------------------------------------------
Car Thefts
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_car_the-crime-car-thefts
#1 on the list.
Burglaries (Thefts)
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_bur-crime-burglaries
What do you know? USA IS NUMBER ONE ON THE LIST
Rapes
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap-crime-rapes
USA IS AGAIN NUMBER ONE ON THE LIST. Its true, we have more rapes here than other countries. Second on the list is south africa, but no, we nearly twice as many.
Prisoners
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_pri-crime-prisoners
We have more prisoners in our country than china, who has the biggest population in the world. WE ARE NUMBER ONE ON THIS LIST AS WELL.
Murders
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur-crime-murders
We are 5th on the list! 5th ON THE LIST OF MOST MURDERS! We are outranked only by India, Russia, Columbia, and South Africa
So as you can see, we are by no means low on the list of crimes, our crime rate is actually one of the highest in the world.
Multicolored millcards in something other than dimir.
Otherwise agreed on your post.
Yes i am the same guy who trades/sells on MOTL AND Wizards of the Coast and i trade on POJO.
That is about as biased as possible.
Yes, U.S. ranks 5th in murder, but 3rd in world population. Without per capita adjustment, everything you've said here loses any meaning. When adjusted per capita it is 24th. The difference between the per capita 5 (Russia) and the U.S. at 24 is enormous. (0.2 vs. 0.042)
Car theft per capita is 9.
Rapes per capita, again, 9.
Murders with firearms, 8 (though statistically far away from #1 South Africa and very much closer to most trailers)
*Total crimes per capita, 8* (Below U.K., Finland, Denmark)
So, why did you only talk about the overall figures when per capita makes such a difference?
Actually the entire list is "iffy"
Russia is not part of the EU.
The Kennedy Aircraft Carrier squadron alone is probably enough to annihlate the standing forces of those countries by itself.
I love the quote from Futrama by Zap Brannagan along the lines of lets show them what a bloated military budget can do.
And thats part of my point, most EU countries dont devote that much money to their military budget and as such cant be expected to be a match for the U.S.
This threads problem as I stated earlier is the problem with who's the best QB of all time debates. What people consider the best is opinion based.
Also I would question if the European democracies and Japan would be able to focus on their social problems if for the past 60 years they had to worry about the Soviet Union with out U.S. providing a military umbrella.
Russia is technically on both continents but yeah its pretty much European, but it doesnt have anything like NATO with western europe.
Also America would have the advantage even if all the european countries managed to band together since its operating solo vs many many different chiefs.
However my question still stands would the europeans states be so affluent with out the U.S. military pressence detering soviet expansion?
Well, from an American point of view, the Netherlands are somewhat socialist, with our healthcare system and extensive safety net for those unable to work.
What ruling class?
No, but that's a much more fun mental image.
I don't think America is the best country. I don't believe in a best country, last I checked, this planet is round. I also don't think it's propaganda by the ruling class that causes this phenomenon. I think is just has to do with a cultural tradition of nationalism. Perhaps it has since been propagated by the rich and powerful, but I don't think it could be said to be the source of it.
Waging a 45-year Cold War against a communist dictatorship didn't help things, either.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Also the extensive tolerance of what the right-wing calls "alternative lifestyles." I think of magic 'shrooms, they think of magic 'shrooms, pot, coke, and gay people having sex. But anyway, you guys are pretty chill about that stuff. Good on ya.
To be fair, while Communism is pretty clearly a failed experiment, socialism is more an acquired taste. I don't think it meshes well with the "American way," for a wide variety of reasons, but if it works for Europe, great. Socialism is better (functionally and subjectively) when it's small, IMO.
*sigh* Come on, Tuss. How many people do you impress with this Howard-Zinn-esque leftism? It's not some vast conspiracy against socialists. For one thing, socialism is just a convenient scapegoat. Also it's not the patented Best System Ever (neither is capitalism, but IMO it's better on a large scale). And as Blinking Spirit pointed out...
Waging a forty-five year war to protect our now-socialist European allies from that nasty Communist bloc threat, no less!
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
But, er, it is ridiculous, as the last century has proven in at least three major cases. McCarthyism had little to do with real Communists and more to do with people McCarthy hated. Now, equating socialism with Communism has taken a little while longer, but I that was a bipartisan, Cold-War-driven effort. And as I said, it's not like it would do a lot of good over here anyway.
That is Communism's intention, yes, but you know what they say about the road to Hell... maybe we should start an economics thread regarding this issue, but in short, central planning and such destroys the desire to work and leads to critical mismanagement.
That's a separate issue, and I would be the first to denounce such actions, if you hadn't beaten me to it. But America isn't the only one who does this, just the biggest. Canada, actually, made a big show about its (heavily government subsidized) fishing industry as the Atlantic cod was being fished to extinction, even as scientists were pointing out declining quantity and quality of catches.
The straw's flying a bit thick isn't it? Where in "this isn't a grand anti-socialist conspiracy" did I say "there are no corporate lobbyists"? I don't deny that there's a "ruling class" (although I would not use that term) but I give it a fraction of the weight you do. Social/political inertia aside, that there are rich and powerful people with leverage is becoming more immaterial, IMO.
That said, what would you do to "fix" this situation?
lololol "hyper-capitalist." Not at all, sir. We subsidize and protect with the best of 'em (okay, maybe not the EU... half the budget to farm subsidy? Huh?). Hyper-capitalist would be... well, I dunno what it would be, because it would require some responsibility on every level from the individual to the federal. And that ain't gonna happen.
Would I be off base if I drew a parallel between your... um, view of American policy and your mention of American anti-communist hysteria?
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.