Political Crossfire Forums

Margo

Chingu wrote: FCTE wrote: martys_f wrote: I do firmly believe that Hillary Clinton would be the best choice for our country to transform our great America to be one of the best social democratic countries.

I do firmly believe that if she were elected she would supersede her husbands inauguration with record gun and ammo sales.

I guarantee you my collection will double.
As would mine. I'd have to up my range capabilities and my caliber.

:rofl:

Margo

Thrilla wrote: ontheyslay wrote: Thrilla wrote: martys_f wrote: I think the "Third Way" is the best direction for this country. Christian fundamentalists ( so called conservatives) are trying to" Talibanize" our country. Thru media , they try to spread the message of hate and discrimination especially against minorities. They do not believe in diversity. Rather, they believe if you are not a christian and follow Jesus , there is something wrong with you.

I hope Americans can benefit from the social democracy that exist in Europe especially in Sweden and France. So called conservatives are trying to shift the direction of this country thru intimidation . They try to depict in the American psyche that "others" ( Arabs, Mexicans, South Americans .. etc) are a clear and present danger to the so called " American culture".

I do firmly believe that Hillary Clinton would be the best choice for our country to transform our great America to be one of the best social democratic countries. christian fundamentalist = conservative?.. ummm ok :roll:

why are people trying to change our country into something other than it is.. a constitutional representative republic.

if a person likes the whole social democracy thing... good for them... move to a country that has one...stop messing with the US

It's no secret christian fundamentalists are conservative. To say they are not is a little ridiculous. yes.. yes they are conservatives... but they dont make up the bulk of conservatives in this country... attempting to pidgeonhole conservatives as christian fundies is quite ridiculous as well.

Amen brother!

Margo

martys_f wrote: I think the "Third Way" is the best direction for this country. Christian fundamentalists ( so called conservatives) are trying to" Talibanize" our country. Thru media , they try to spread the message of hate and discrimination especially against minorities. They do not believe in diversity. Rather, they believe if you are not a christian and follow Jesus , there is something wrong with you.

I hope Americans can benefit from the social democracy that exist in Europe especially in Sweden and France. So called conservatives are trying to shift the direction of this country thru intimidation . They try to depict in the American psyche that "others" ( Arabs, Mexicans, South Americans .. etc) are a clear and present danger to the so called " American culture".

I do firmly believe that Hillary Clinton would be the best choice for our country to transform our great America to be one of the best social democratic countries.

Benefit from the social democracies of Europe?? Who do you think pays for all those social programs?/ the people busting their butts everyday trying to earn a living. Nothing in life is free, nothing. Socialism in France has backfired miserably with predictions for the near future relegating it to one giant nursing home status! There is no motivation, no incentive for younger workers. and lets not forget the endless lines that socailism has brought with it, for medical treatments. Who needs it? and who needs more gov't. dipping their hands into our collective wallets??
I believe your argument about conservatives is sorely lacking especially in light of the recent mid-terms elections and because you have obviously fallen into the stereotype trap.
The U.S. has always been a'melting pot' of cultures, that isn't the problem regarding immigration. What we are upset about are people coming in droves ILLEGALLY into this country and using our social programs that have been paid for by the taxpayers here. We are also upset with people that come into this country and refuse to assimilate. That's not exactly in the 'melting pot' spirit and we have every reason to resent it. If one wants to come to the US by all means do so but please! for God's sake do it legally and respectfully and don't come here trying to change our constitution, our values, our morals, our culture. What's wrong with that?

tneedles · Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 7:52 pm Post subject:

Chingu wrote: tneedles wrote: There is very little interest in changing to a "social democracy". And, Hillary....she is definitely not the person to transform. She would govern from the center. Plus, the congressional support is not there.

My wife and I made it to where we are today. It was not easy. But, we did it without any government or parental help. If we can do it, anyone can.

I think your version of the center is pretty far to the left then if you think Hillary would govern from the center. Of course, she'd campaign FOR the center - but I know she wouldn't govern that way. 8:)

She would. Look at her husband....he did not exactly govern from the left. Bill would be the influence in the administration.

ontheyslay · Joined: 26 Oct 2006 Posts: 274 Location: Michigan

If you want a prime example of how well a social democracy can work, look at Sweden.

tneedles · Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 8:18 pm Post subject:

ontheyslay wrote: If you want a prime example of how well a social democracy can work, look at Sweden.

What works in Sweden may not work in the United States. You have to take that into consideration. What was the catalyst for the change in Sweden?

You have to have the support of the people. And, it is clearly not there in the United States. We generally like our taxes low and do not favor the expansion of social programs. Generally, we do not mind helping people through the rough times, but we do not want them sucking off the public teat for years.

ontheyslay · Joined: 26 Oct 2006 Posts: 274 Location: Michigan

tneedles wrote: ontheyslay wrote: If you want a prime example of how well a social democracy can work, look at Sweden.

What works in Sweden may not work in the United States. You have to take that into consideration. What was the catalyst for the change in Sweden?

You have to have the support of the people. And, it is clearly not there in the United States. We generally like our taxes low and do not favor the expansion of social programs. Generally, we do not mind helping people through the rough times, but we do not want them sucking off the public teat for years.

You don't really need the support of a majority of the people in this kind of system. You just have to know how to frame political view points in order to please the public, regardless of the policy, which happens all the time in this country anyway. Bush used to be able to do that, but obviously it;s not working anymore.

I think an important difference is the educational systems between US and Sweden. I believe, though others may not agree with me, that a European educational system would be a good option for the US, which wold constitute getting away from the University for all program, and focusing more on vocational schools. Students would go to vocational schools that focus on a single sector of the job market, most of which is government funded.

tneedles · Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 9:04 pm Post subject:

ontheyslay wrote: tneedles wrote: ontheyslay wrote: If you want a prime example of how well a social democracy can work, look at Sweden.

What works in Sweden may not work in the United States. You have to take that into consideration. What was the catalyst for the change in Sweden?

You have to have the support of the people. And, it is clearly not there in the United States. We generally like our taxes low and do not favor the expansion of social programs. Generally, we do not mind helping people through the rough times, but we do not want them sucking off the public teat for years.

You don't really need the support of a majority of the people in this kind of system. You just have to know how to frame political view points in order to please the public, regardless of the policy, which happens all the time in this country anyway. Bush used to be able to do that, but obviously it;s not working anymore.

I think an important difference is the educational systems between US and Sweden. I believe, though others may not agree with me, that a European educational system would be a good option for the US, which wold constitute getting away from the University for all program, and focusing more on vocational schools. Students would go to vocational schools that focus on a single sector of the job market, most of which is government funded.

You have to have the support of the majority of people if you want the change. Something as big as this would be a major campaign issue. You say higher taxes and expansion of social programs and you lose the moderates and independents. You need them to make it work.

kohadril · Joined: 16 Nov 2006 Posts: 18 Location: Portland, OR

As I've already said, I think that generic comparison between states with various degrees of governmental intervention is too abstract to be helpful. That said, I think there have been some mischaracterizations of various countries and they're experiences with certain social programs.

Everybody has problems. Excluding Scandinavia (for structural reasons, everything works pretty well there), European socialist countries have significant difficulties. They experience moderate economic growth (which is stabler, but on average slower, than American economic growth). They have high tax burdens, but generally high pay and greater income equality than the US. They generally have higher unemployment; France is a good example of this. That said, Western European nations routinely score better on the HDI than the United States does; some would argue that indicates a higher quality of life.

Some problems have been overstated. The French national healthcare system, for instance, is not terrible, but it does have severe waiting times and access problems due to powerful labor unions. The British NHS used to be terrible, but after ten years of New Labour government dedicated to solving NHS's problems, the system is really shaping up. One metric, wait time from GP to surgery for important (but noncritical) operations, has been cut so far that it's approaching the speed of the American system. That's one example of several.

Of course, NHS has had to buckle down a lot. It used to be you could only get free healthcare at NHS facilities. To meet waiting time targets, NHS is now authorized to pay private hospitals to conduct procedures when no public hospital has an open table. That's obviously more expensive, but it meets NHS's goal of providing healthcare to all, so New Labour is fine with it, even if Old Labour might not have been.

One thing I've heard on this thread that definitely needs to be repeated is: what works elsewhere might not work here.

Sweden's healthcare system is excellent. But Sweden is not as racially, economically, politically, geographically, or religiously diverse as is the United States. It is nowhere near as large, and it's not divided into fifty states, each with its own separate government and guaranteed rights. Structurally, Sweden is well suited to provide public goods efficiently. The United States is not.

While I am against socialized healthcare in the United States, the argument that has been made--that it would cost us more in taxes than we pay to hospitals and health insurance companies now--is just completely wrong. The United States spends more per capita on healthcare than any country in the world. And not by a little. People like to make fun of Canada's system, but the Canadian system costs taxpayers there vastly less per person than our system costs. So does NHS in Britain, and so does the national system in France. If we nationalized healthcare, the bills we pay to hospitals would go down much further than our tax bills went up; there is simply no model in the world to demonstrate the opposite. Of course, the Canadian system has serious problems. I guess you get what you pay for.

The idea that the market does things more efficiently than government is only true if there are governmental strictures in place to prevent market failures. That is the way I would solve US healthcare problems; market-based solutions designed to best direct capitalist incentives toward the fulfillment of the social goal of universal coverage at low cost. I have a couple of potential models for this, but this is not the thread for that.

This has been something of a rambling post. My central thesis is this: explore specific issues, not generalities. Don't ask "should we be more or less socialist?", instead, ask "should we socialize medicine?" or "should we privatize social security." Advocate specific moves towards or away from socialism; that way, we can evaluate the idea in the framework of costs versus benefits.

Edited for spelling.

thefranzkafkafront · Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 9:18 pm Post subject:

ontheyslay wrote: If you want a prime example of how well a social democracy can work, look at Sweden.

Maoism works, dose that justify it as a system of goverment?

Mr. Sunshine · Joined: 07 Oct 2006 Posts: 1324

We are a country of laws. That is what we are founded on and continue to try and achieve. 8:)

kohadril · Joined: 16 Nov 2006 Posts: 18 Location: Portland, OR

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Maoism works, dose that justify it as a system of goverment?
I'm sorry if this sounds personal, but that is an extremely bad argument.

When the person you quoted said Sweden "worked," I believe they meant "provides an excellent quality of life for those who live there." If I'm right, then Maoism doesn't work, by that definition. Mao's Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution impoverished, starved, and brutalized millions. It's maybe a tiny bit offensive to compare the government of Sweden to one of the most brutal dictators in history. I can't imagine what would possess you to do that.

Don't do it again, for your own sake. It makes your arguments appear weak, and does a disservice to people who agree with you but prefer to argue rationally.

Ozzone · Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 9:32 pm Post subject:

ontheyslay wrote: If you want a prime example of how well a social democracy can work, look at Sweden.

And how big is Sweden?

How many people?

How many immigrants?

How much GDP?

How big a military?

You can easily take one state here (like Ohio and Michigan which are comparable in population) and compare it, but never compare our whole country to Sweden.

thefranzkafkafront · Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 9:33 pm Post subject:

kohadril wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Maoism works, dose that justify it as a system of goverment?
I'm sorry if this sounds personal, but that is an extremely bad argument.

When the person you quoted said Sweden "worked," I believe they meant "provides an excellent quality of life for those who live there." If I'm right, then Maoism doesn't work, by that definition. Mao's Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution impoverished, starved, and brutalized millions. It's maybe a tiny bit offensive to compare the government of Sweden to one of the most brutal dictators in history. I can't imagine what would possess you to do that.

Don't do it again, for your own sake. It makes your arguments appear weak, and does a disservice to people who agree with you but prefer to argue rationally.

Effectivity in achieving its goals, be it mass repression or universal healthcare. Dose not justify the method of that goverment.

Teleological reasoning is all over the shop, Effect dose not justify cause.

It's not a weak argument as you put it, i wasunt compartively comparing the merits of maosim or socail democracy. I hope my argument is clearer now.

GTTofAK · Joined: 09 Jan 2005 Posts: 5968 Location: Alaska

As time goes on democracy and socailsm become one in the same.

"A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only last until the citizens discover they can vote themselves largesse out of the public treasury. "
.............Alexander Frazer Tytler

kohadril · Joined: 16 Nov 2006 Posts: 18 Location: Portland, OR

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Effectivity in achieving its goals, be it mass repression or universal healthcare. Dose not justify the method of that goverment.

Teleological reasoning is all over the shop, Effect dose not justify cause.

It's not a weak argument as you put it, i wasunt compartively comparing the merits of maosim or socail democracy. I hope my argument is clearer now.
I see. I apologize for misinterpreting you. I would disagree, however, that providing universal healthcare is the central goal of Sweden's government. I think their central goal is providing a high quality of life for the people who live there. Universal healthcare is just a means to that end.

I would also like to extend a hearty "hear hear" to Ozzone. From the Coulter quote you sign off with, my guess is I won't be doing this often, but you're absolutely right: something liberals tend to ignore (I know, because I've done it myself) is that the United States is structurally and demographically distinct from European states. What works there won't necessarily work here. I discuss this in greater depth in an earlier post.

pyrophasma · Joined: 19 Sep 2006 Posts: 591 Location: Georgia

GTTofAK wrote:
"A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only last until the citizens discover they can vote themselves largesse out of the public treasury. "
.............Alexander Frazer Tytler

This needs repeating.

thefranzkafkafront · Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 9:49 pm Post subject:

kohadril wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Effectivity in achieving its goals, be it mass repression or universal healthcare. Dose not justify the method of that goverment.

Teleological reasoning is all over the shop, Effect dose not justify cause.

It's not a weak argument as you put it, i wasunt compartively comparing the merits of maosim or socail democracy. I hope my argument is clearer now.
I see. I apologize for misinterpreting you. I would disagree, however, that providing universal healthcare is the central goal of Sweden's government. I think their central goal is providing a high quality of life for the people who live there. Universal healthcare is just a means to that end.

The failing of said teleological reasoning are as follows.

1. Though building hospitals pumping money into heathcare (the cause) will be for the motive of acheiving the intended better health for all sweeds (the effect). There is no nessisary causal link between the cause and effect. Thus without the ability of foresight (which as we all know is impossible) the cause can fail to achieve the wanted effect and instead cause a diffrent prehaps unwated effect (examples that spring ot mind from britian, are massive budget deficits, and a mentality that your health is a socital responcibility).

2. As with 1. the effect acheived can cause futher injustice

3. Teleological reasoning can attempt to justify actions that are inherently unjustifiably, in this case subverting indidivual free will, by forcing him to contribute to what is and should be a charitiable cause.

As you've said, the means to an end, falls down on the above counts.

CursedLemon · Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 9:50 pm Post subject:

Republicans make me chuckle.

They're so very against socialism when their fiscal policies are the SOURCE of the need for such socialist programs.

You people always yap about "treat the source, not the symptoms". Well guess what? Wal-Mart is the source. The failing auto industry is the source. Illegal immigration is the source. And conservative fiscal policies ENCOURAGE things like these.

So I don't want to hear another Republican rant about "finding real solutions" to these problems when their precious tr00 capitalism is what creates the need for socialism. And to say that the government is "less efficient at charity" than charitable organizations is laughable. All it takes is a welfare overhaul and the Pubs will shut their traps.

Ozzone · Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 9:59 pm Post subject:

CursedLemon wrote: Republicans make me chuckle.

They're so very against socialism when their fiscal policies are the SOURCE of the need for such socialist programs.

You people always yap about "treat the source, not the symptoms". Well guess what? Wal-Mart is the source.

You mean a store that provides low cost goods to people on low incomes? Where should they shop?

Quote: The failing auto industry is the source.

Yep, if it wasn't for all those high wages and massive pensions pushed by the unions, the auto industry here could actually compete with the Japanese and Koreans and sell more cars.

Quote: Illegal immigration is the source.

Which is exactly why we want to get rid of illegals.

Quote: And conservative fiscal policies ENCOURAGE things like these.

Nope. Conservative fiscal policies believe a company like Wal-Mart should be left alone (and see how much it's grown). It's liberal policies that are killing the auto industry and allowing illegal immigration to become a serious problem.

Quote: So I don't want to hear another Republican rant about "finding real solutions" to these problems when their precious tr00 capitalism is what creates the need for socialism.

Nope. What creates the need for socialism is socialists playing their violins and convincing hard working people that it's right to take their money away and give it to people that want a safety net.

As long as some people know they can sit on their asses and pump out babies and collect government handouts, they will continue to do so and stay below the poverty line.