Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
There is no recession by the definition of economists (two consecutive quarters of negative growth) - that's just the parallel universe agitprop imagined by Obamabots. The order of the slowing and causal relationship is known by anyone who reads the business news anywhere.
There is only a recession for middle class and poor. Income data is as you say for the wealthiest people in the country, having divested in American and invested in China and other foreign lands.
Take a look at Michigan where it is worse. Food banks and other relief agencies are nearing the end of their resources. Yup! If you are like rich Dick DeVoss (ran for Republican Gov. of Michigan and lost), divested in Michigan, created jobs in China by starting a new factory, established an off-shore bank account in the Bahamas to receive his money from China without paying any income tax. Yes, only the "little people" know that there is a recession.
I come from the midwest (ohio) and feel sorry for the unemployed blue collar workers there. I am a former member of the UAW, having worked in a Chrysler plant one summer.
The people in Michigan owe their plight to the unions. During the post-WWII period, the US was in a golden age of manufacturing. Europe was destroyed and asia hadn't come on line. The US could make anything and sell it all over the world. Workers could be paid huge wages and benefits. But that period, roughly 1945-1970 was a unique confluence of historic elements. Around 1970, things began to change, as europe and asia began to compete, but unions didn't change - they wanted exorbitant salaries and benefits. Now, the golden age is long gone. The unions should have prepared their workers for a changed world, and retrained them. Instead, they are living in the past, pretending it's 1968 when it's 2008.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
But here's some stuff after 20 seconds of googling - it's all over the net - get in there and read. Do your OWN googling.
I didn't refer to anything written by conservatives.
The articles to which you refer are not evaluations of the issue of socialized medicine, they are opinions of the authors who want to sell stories. You cannot state with certainty they are not conservatives with a biased outlook. The authors picked the worst examples of which to write (I wonder why), by which to denounce the idea of socialized med. Therefore, by excluding successful programs from their "unbiased" scrutiny, they have become suspect of Conservative bias. Not all countries are as unsuccessful as the U.K. and Canada. For instance:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi...thcare_system/
No, the articles contained many facts about the abysmal performance of socialized systems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
You said there were no homeless in Sweden, and I said that was false. I've been there and seen it. But it isn't anywhere near what there is in the US, because the swedes have a work ethic that libs have sucked out of people in this country.
I said that there were not large masses of homeless like in the U.S. And if there are homeless in Sweden, it is not because of the grinding poverty of the lower classes like that we have in this country.
Whatever prosperity there is in sweden is in spite of, not because of, their social system. Sweden took a pass on WWII, letting others do the fighting and dying and paying bills. Both with the fascists in the 1940s and the communists afterwards, the US racked up big losses in blood and money, while they did nothing. What would have happened to "neutral" countries if either the fascists of the communists had taken over the world, or even just europe? They would have become impoverished dismal slave states like eastern europe under the communists. Sweden also doesn't have the social problems the US is burdened with because they don't have huge problems with minorities an illegal aliens. When you have a monoracial, "neutral", country with a big work ethic and law-abiding population, you can make things work out nifty, but it has nothing to do with socialism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
Illogic[Sic, Illogical]. There's no such thing as a "good mass transit system". Such systems, based on rail and busses, basically an anachronistic 19th century technology, take you WHERE they want to take you, WHEN they want to take you, and HOW they want to take you. They often stop running at night. Ask americans how many would agree to completely give up their car in favor of mass transit. Cars are MUCH more expensive in sweden, and the gas is MUCH more expensive than in the US. Swedes can't afford cars for the same reason they can't afford houses - the government takes 50% of their pay.
The Swedes seem quite happy with their system. "...anachronistic 19th century technology..." ? No, modern European train system with a well establish network of routes. However, they do not have the network of roads that the U.S. has, so even if one had a car, he would not find the network of freeways and other roads to make car travel convenient.
The Swedes are adapted to their system and again your opinion that they would choose to change to an American style system is your subjective opinion.
This is the key phrase - "The Swedes are adapted". Sweden has a population that is built around the transportation system determined by bureaucrats. In the US, the transportation is built around peoples' preferences and desires. The auto is an american's freedom machine - it goes where he wants it to, when he wants it to. He pays the bills he has incurred, not somebody else's. This is the fundamental difference between freedom advocates and statists: the former demand the state serve them, the latter believe individuals "adapt" to the state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
You didn't read right, Einstein. Here you go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit...ndinavia_(WWII)
You lucked-out and were correct on that one.
No,I didn't "luck out".
I simply have apprised myself of the well-known facts of modern history, and suggest you do the same.
Seems that after being surrounded by enemies, the Swedes did allow for German troops to cross from Finland to Norway via Sweden. At the point it happened, what choice did they have? None the less, it was because they were socialists.
They were no more "surrounded" than any of europe's victims of nazis.
When the french were attacked by germans, what did they do? Fight back.
When the belgians were attacked by germans, what did they do? Fight back.
When the dutch were attacked by germans, what did they do? Fight back.
When the norwegians were attacked by germans, what did they do? Fight back.
When the poles were attacked by germans, what did they do? Fight back.
When the british were attacked by germans, what did they do? Fight back.
When the finnish were attacked by germans, what did they do? Fight back.
When the russians were attacked by germans, what did they do? Fight back.
When the americans were attacked by germans, what did they do? Fight back.
When the greeks were attacked by germans, what did they do? Fight back.
When the yugoslavs were attacked by germans, what did they do? Fight back.
When the czechs were attacked by germans, what did they do? Fight back.
Do your OWN googling.
The only exculpation I can think of for you is that it's clear you've been force-fed by the lib media and leftwing propaganda only, which tend to ignore parts of history that are inconvenient for their worldview.
The difficulty in proving universal propositions ("There are no cats with three colors") is obvious to most, and a standard feature of Logic 101 courses. Perhaps you should take such a course?
