let's try and avoid this here

[reaper239]

socialism kills folks. as european governments struggle to stay above water, they take everything from their citizens. the intolerable requirements placed on businesses in europe is finally taking it's toll. the old addage "a government strong eough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take it all away" has never been shown to be truer. these people elected people to take care of them with money that no one had, and now that it's time to collect, the government is taking it all back, and the people can't handle it. the suicide rate in europe is skyrocketing as those who have found themselves out of work are being slapped with massive tax collection notifications, ever increasing fines, and the loss of benefits. this is something we need to try and fix while we still can here in the US. canada should also take notice of what's happening in europe, before it's too late.

ad then people blame the governments for doing exactly what the people empowered them to do.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/world/europe/increasingly-in-europe-suicides-by-economic-crisis.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.npr.org/2012/04/21/151061607/amid-europes-debt-crisis-a-sharp-rise-in-suicides

http://www.policymic.com/articles/7263/greece-suicide-rate-on-the-rise-shows-austerity-s-toll

http://www.thejournal.ie/sharp-increase-in-suicide-rate-is-linked-to-recession-experts-479033-Jun2012/

[Kram]

Hmm. I'm not sure I really want to get involved in a political discussion on a forum about zombies...

I will say that I am glad to live in Canada. What I view as dangerous is political extremism -- either right or left wing. In Canada, I think we try to find a balance -- having economic freedom similar to that in the US, while also publicly funding social programs, like our universal health care system. I think most Canadians are satisfied with the current situation. If any government tries to support either business interests or social programs, at the great expense of the other, the Canadian public will not re-elect them.

[VEE]

The UK does not have a properly elected government, they didn't get a sufficient majority and formed a coalition with another party who were so desperate to get back into government that they wiped their arses on their beliefs. That having been said, the last lot weren't much use either, we vote by colour now as the policies are pretty much universaly bland. I usually vote red. We are currently governed by Blue with a little bit of yellow.

[reaper239]

as long as they've balanced their budget. the problem that has occurred in most of the european countries, and that is also happening here, is that the government is paying for social programs at the expense of its citizens, and now europe is paying the price for that.

[GeneTwo]

I agree balance the budget!!!

Take those tax brakes from the rich, big business and oil companies.

[Solanine]

as long as they've balanced their budget. the problem that has occurred in most of the european countries, and that is also happening here, is that the government is paying for social programs at the expense of its citizens, and now europe is paying the price for that.

The goverment will always pay for social programs at the expense of its citizens, who else will pay? Socialism isn't the root of the european probem, lack of fiscal responisbility and the very structure of the single currency is. Balancing the budget has to become a secondary priority to growth, austerity reduces countries GDP, reducing their ability to pay off their debts. Socialism saves lives. If you want to see how, I reccomend you watch Michael Moore's "Sicko". In the UK if I happen to get a form of cancer that is extremely expensive to cure then the cost is covered by the tax payers. Everybody pays, and the cost tothem is less than if they had a few expensive operations. They can also rest easy at night knowing their treatment is peformed by people who's interest is their health not in making money. GeneTwo is right though, if you want to balance the budget then increase tax proportionally, the rich (who can afford it) suffer the greatest increase in tax while the poor are left untouched. The problem with this is the people in power, due to the way the American (and British to a lesser extent) democratic systems work. Basically the rich are favoured over the poor. For example Obama has an estate of about $12,000,000 and Obama is in the bottom 3rd of members of the US senate. And guess what, they don't very much like the idea of increasing tax for themselves or their friends. Thats without mentioning lobbyists who greatly avert the direction of goverment policy in favour of the super rich individuals and corperations. Europe would not be in the situation if it was not for Anglo-American banks collapsing. They were slow to realise the degree to which those collapses would affect their economies. If it was not for poor regulation of anglo-american banks then they would not have collapsed, the EU would not have been affected and suicide rates in countries would have stayed lower than that of the united states. To summarise, Capitilism was fatal for the EU and killed those people, not socialism. In fact a more heavily regulated, big goverment US would have prevented this collapse.

[yarri]

The goverment will always pay for social programs at the expense of its citizens, who else will pay? Socialism isn't the root of the european probem, lack of fiscal responisbility and the very structure of the single currency is. Balancing the budget has to become a secondary priority to growth, austerity reduces countries GDP, reducing their ability to pay off their debts. Socialism saves lives. If you want to see how, I reccomend you watch Michael Moore's "Sicko". In the UK if I happen to get a form of cancer that is extremely expensive to cure then the cost is covered by the tax payers. Everybody pays, and the cost tothem is less than if they had a few expensive operations. They can also rest easy at night knowing their treatment is peformed by people who's interest is their health not in making money. GeneTwo is right though, if you want to balance the budget then increase tax proportionally, the rich (who can afford it) suffer the greatest increase in tax while the poor are left untouched. The problem with this is the people in power, due to the way the American (and British to a lesser extent) democratic systems work. Basically the rich are favoured over the poor. For example Obama has an estate of about $12,000,000 and Obama is in the bottom 3rd of members of the US senate. And guess what, they don't very much like the idea of increasing tax for themselves or their friends. Thats without mentioning lobbyists who greatly avert the direction of goverment policy in favour of the super rich individuals and corperations. Europe would not be in the situation if it was not for Anglo-American banks collapsing. They were slow to realise the degree to which those collapses would affect their economies. If it was not for poor regulation of anglo-american banks then they would not have collapsed, the EU would not have been affected and suicide rates in countries would have stayed lower than that of the united states. To summarise, Capitilism was fatal for the EU and killed those people, not socialism. In fact a more heavily regulated, big goverment US would have prevented this collapse.

Reaper you know I <3 you to bits but Sol is right. I had to have a business major explain it to me Capitolism isn't good.

[yarri]

But on that note neither is pure socialism as it promotes a class of able bodied people that refuse to work and contribute to the well being of their community and become leeches. everyone that can physically contribute should.

[GeneTwo]

If the corporations are "people" they should pay taxes like normal people and get off that corporate welfare.

[Solanine]

But on that note neither is pure socialism as it promotes a class of able bodied people that refuse to work and contribute to the well being of their community and become leeches. everyone that can physically contribute should.

There is an experiment often quoted by anti-socialist campaigners. It showed that if the individuals of the class are graded as the average of the class the average grade drops after the first test as the pupils whom previously got high grades are dis-heartened by the low grade recieved. When you substitute money in you kind of get the picture. There will always be the few leeches who find a way to beat the system but this does not mean the whole system should be scrapped. Especially when times get hard people are less willing to put up with the leeches and so legislation is tightened.

[reaper239]

The goverment will always pay for social programs at the expense of its citizens, who else will pay? Socialism isn't the root of the european probem, lack of fiscal responisbility and the very structure of the single currency is. Balancing the budget has to become a secondary priority to growth, austerity reduces countries GDP, reducing their ability to pay off their debts.

here in america, the people used to take care of each other. the government didn't provide for the people (because that's not their job) and the people helped each other. the best way to spark growth is to free the market, not regulate it into oblivion. what happens when you hike taxes on businessess? they move. look at it this way: i live in a town that just raised my taxes to 30%. the next town over, however, only has 10% taxes. where am i going to reside and do my business? it's the same thing you find in countries, raise the taxes on businessess and those who can, move, while those who can't close up shop.


Socialism saves lives.

cuba, the USSR, zambia, china, egypt, algeria, bolivia, north korea (i mean it's not like people are eating each other (http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/asia-pacific/120518/north-korea-executes-3-cannibalism-report-claims)over there) that is a very bold statement with centuries of of contradictory evidence. i mean, if socialistic governments are so great, why did the arab spring occur? those are all strong central governments, and yet the people wanted something else. they may be worse off now with the muslim brotherhood in power, but that's a theocracy.


If you want to see how, I reccomend you watch Michael Moore's "Sicko". In the UK if I happen to get a form of cancer that is extremely expensive to cure then the cost is covered by the tax payers. Everybody pays, and the cost tothem is less than if they had a few expensive operations. They can also rest easy at night knowing their treatment is peformed by people who's interest is their health not in making money.

except that it's not covered (http://larouchepac.com/node/10431). the only reason to see sicko is to see michael more stay afloat in a boat long enough to make it to cuba. surely that's a trick of hollywood. michael moore (http://www.hulu.com/watch/125307) is not a documentarian by any stretch of the imagination. why are 70,000 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-490233/Record-numbers-abroad-health-treatment-70-000-escaping-NHS.html) british citizens going abroad for health care as of 2007? might it be because they have no options in britain, they have no hope, and so look for it elsewhere? at least in the US (as long as obamacare gets shot down in the courts) you can get whatever treatment you need, and there are options to help you do it. why do you think so many new treatment options are available in the UK? because americans pioneered the treatment. the more a treatment is done, the more ways people figure out how to do it better and cheaper until it becomes cheap enough that it can go to countries that regulate their health care, the way britain does.


GeneTwo is right though, if you want to balance the budget then increase tax proportionally, the rich (who can afford it) suffer the greatest increase in tax while the poor are left untouched.

i talked about this in section 1, but i'd like to say a little more about taxes and the economy. everyone talks about big oil. big oil is stealing from the consumer, big oil is hiking gas prices, big oil, big oil, big oil. did you know that exxon, one of the biggest oil companies in the world, has a profit margin of only 7.62%. for comparison, let's look at other US based companies: apple-27.13%, microsoft-29.34%, and google-27.1%. in 2010, exxon made $30.46 billion in profit, but when you compare that to the $78.6 billion they paid in taxes, it really puts their profits in perspective. as far as the wealthiest 1%, well, i for one think they pay enough in the US. according to taxfoundation.org (http://taxfoundation.org/article/new-data-top-1-pay-greater-dollar-amount-income-taxes-federal-government-bottom-90), the wealthiest 1% pay 39.38% of the income tax burden, in the US. the top 10% pays 70.30% of the taxes in the US. i think we all pay enough taxes folks, maybe it's time for our governments do what their citizens do and spend within their means.


The problem with this is the people in power, due to the way the American (and British to a lesser extent) democratic systems work. Basically the rich are favoured over the poor. For example Obama has an estate of about $12,000,000 and Obama is in the bottom 3rd of members of the US senate. And guess what, they don't very much like the idea of increasing tax for themselves or their friends. Thats without mentioning lobbyists who greatly avert the direction of goverment policy in favour of the super rich individuals and corperations.

true, this is a problem, but what is also a problem is people electing politicians who have never held a real job. i work for a living, as such i must blalnce my bills, but few of our politicians, particularly the democrats for some reason, have had to go through that. then, we had a chance to elect a man who had real business experience to bring to the table, who had a first hand knowledge on how economics work, and we let the media assassinate him from the race. because it makes more sense to keep a man in office who thinks that socialism (hello north korea) is a good economic plan. thumbs up.


Europe would not be in the situation if it was not for Anglo-American banks collapsing. They were slow to realise the degree to which those collapses would affect their economies. If it was not for poor regulation of anglo-american banks then they would not have collapsed, the EU would not have been affected and suicide rates in countries would have stayed lower than that of the united states. To summarise, Capitilism was fatal for the EU and killed those people, not socialism. In fact a more heavily regulated, big goverment US would have prevented this collapse.

if it were not for excessive regulation which attempted to defy the basic principles of economics, this wouldn't be a problem. let's look at te US housing market. bush, fannie mae, and freddie mac all set out ot defy the laws of economics by doling out mcmansions to people with mcjobs. they sold houses that people couldn't afford to the people that couln't afford them and then shocker llnl they couldn't pay for them. that meant that all these loans were floating around out htere with no one to pay on them. if the market were allowed to set the interest rates, make loan decisions itself, and reap it's own rewards/consequences, we wouldn't be having this discussion. so to summarize, capitalism didn't fail, what failed was the idea the people could legislate prosperity. and for proof, over the last 200 years the US has become the envy of the world. for proof, just look at how many people try to come here illegaly (mexicos cheif export to the US is illegal immigrants), but since that's a hard number to gauge, let's look at the number of people who were naturalized between 2008-2010: 2,410,227. that's not including the number who applied, that's just those who were granted citizenship. damn. and america didn't start declining until we began implimenting socialist ideas.

nothing against you man, but socialism has been proven a bad idea over and over again. nothing good ever comes from it. the cheif export of most socialist countries is its citizens and prosperity.

[Solanine]

Oh crap, looks like my last post didn't work. Was just checking my subscribed threads and I saw I wasn't the last poster. My original reply took a little while so forgive me if I don't post right now.

[Luna Guardian]

Alright, first of all, what is going on in China, North Korea and used to in the USSR isn't socialism. It's called that, but it really isn't. It's a hybrid of dictatorship and socialism, so you can't really blame socialism for the problems those people face (also, quoting North Korea as an example is like quoting Nazi Germany as an example. You wreck your own credibility by doing so. It's an effective scare tactic against those who are either dumb or completely ignorant of what goes on outside their bedroom, but otherwise you might want to drop it from your arguments).

Now, speaking of Europe as a single whole is another issue I have a problem with. Southern European countries are in economic death throes, but the north is (for the most part) doing pretty ok. Our countries aren't a trillion dollars in debt, Germany's one of the most powerful economies in the world and the Nordic countries are doing ok, all things considered (especially Norway, cheeky pricks). Sure, there are overspanning issues in Europe that affect everyone, comes with the common currency and trade area, but categorically putting every European country in the same basket is just wrong and doesn't help your argument.

Now, those things being said, I am a believer in capitalism. I believe that a person should be rewarded according to his/her worth and input. I am not studying my ass off and taking responsibilities to not be rewarded for it in the end. And of course I don't like paying taxes, I would much rather keep the money myself. But I also enjoy the fact that I have FREE EDUCATION UP TO DOCTORAL LEVEL (multiple doctorates if I want them), free roads and free healthcare.

Socialism and capitalism are both bad when taken to extremes, like every concept. There is a middle ground to be found, the sweetspot where the individual freedoms and entrepreneurial spirit of capitalism are met by the obvious benefits of everyone chipping in for a commond good that you gain from socialism. And as someone living in a far more "socialist" country than you Reaper, I never fail to burst out laughing when you Americans tout around the word "socialism" or "socialist" in your politics. Your most left winged politicians are more right winged than our most right winged conservatives :D

[Solanine]

Luna guardian I kind of hate you. Because that was pretty much my original reply (which either bugged out and was lost in the aether or I completely forgot to click the post button) except you compressed it and expressed it more eloquently than I did. Just to follow up on what Luna said, as well as the other countries mentioned, Bulgaria has the lowest income tax in the EU and 80% of its GDP comes from the private sector.

And as for the NHS, pretty much everything but cosmetic care is covered. And the expensive cancer drugs of which I talked? Free. Drugs like medication for allergies and other prescription medications all cost £7 per month for over 18's. What ever the market price. And the reason british people go else where for healthcare? "The iron lady of the western world". Margret Thatcher gutted the dental system. She didn't believe in the state funding healthcare. And the people of Northen Britain HATED her. On guy forks night they burnt effigies of her rather than guy's. And now there are huge waiting lists for dentists because the private sector has failed to pick up the slack.

The problem with US economy was not that it was legislated, it was that it was poorly legislated. Had governing bodies taken better care with regulating the banks and had more power to deal with the problem we wouldn't be where we are now.

As for your country being in decline? Its inevitable. As more countries become more developed they will begin to claim their own slice of pie meaning countries like the US and Britain will have to give up the disproportionate amount they hold. Get used to it. You won't beat them economically and you won't take the wealth back with military strength.

People used to take care of each other? Well in cities of millions of people thats not feasible in the way it was before. Thats what the government is for. A goverment should be no more than a vehicle through which to carry out the collective will of the people.

Finally, socialist-capatilist hybrid goverments have yet to create the same GDP as the capitalist me and Luna seem to support. Thats not to say its impossible, just that the science is yet to be (and probably won't be in the forseable future) honed. But morally, however you look at it, allowing somebody who could live a happy healthy life to die due to lacking a one time treatment is abismal.

[yarri]

Why are we using the word free to describe health care, schooling, and cancer drugs they are not free some one pays for them in the form of taxes and high cost for things such as basic necessities. Free is an incorrect word.

[Solanine]

Why are we using the word free to describe health care, schooling, and cancer drugs they are not free some one pays for them in the form of taxes and high cost for things such as basic necessities. Free is an incorrect word.

Free is not a correct word. Nothing is ever truly free as anybody familiar with Newtons laws of thermo dynamics knows (see law of conservation of energy). Everybody pays taxes. But the idea of public healthcare is that whether your Alan sugar or a working class joe you have access to healthcare essential to provide a long and comfortable life. Nobody should be entitled to a longer life just because of the economic prowess of their father or their fathers father.

[yarri]

Free is not a correct word. Nothing is ever truly free as anybody familiar with Newtons laws of thermo dynamics knows (see law of conservation of energy). Everybody pays taxes. But the idea of public healthcare is that whether your Alan sugar or a working class joe you have access to healthcare essential to provide a long and comfortable life. Nobody should be entitled to a longer life just because of the economic prowess of their father or their fathers father.
I agree with you fully on this but no matter how you slice it healthcare or any social program isn't free

[Solanine]

And I agree with you, nothings free. Renewable energy isn't renewable. But its better for the strong to carry the burdens of the weak than to leave them behind. Society depends on altruism. If you...

[Nate Eeez]

Simply put; I'm willing to pay for everyone to be covered with health insurance through my tax dollars.

[VEE]

I agree with you fully on this but no matter how you slice it healthcare or any social program isn't free

It is in the sense that somebody who has never paid any Income tax or national insurance can receive the same treatment as me, who has paid both for nearly 30 years. To them, it is free healthcare, and that is the way we tend to 'think' of it, as, were I to fall ill and need £100,000 worth of treatment, I don't have that sort of money, but I would still get the treatment, and no debt or requirement to pay it back.

The NHS is not perfect, and the Michael Moore 'Documentary' is flawed, and you are right though of course, somebody does pay for it in the end. The idea is simply that we all pay for each other to be well, and this goes back through time, to our forefathers (well, 1948) who set it up, people down the years who have contributed and people today, when you are hurting, they are all there for you, and it is a wonderful thing.

I sound like a bit of an old romantic there.

[Solanine]

It is in the sense that somebody who has never paid any Income tax or national insurance can receive the same treatment as me, who has paid both for nearly 30 years. To them, it is free healthcare, and that is the way we tend to 'think' of it, as, were I to fall ill and need £100,000 worth of treatment, I don't have that sort of money, but I would still get the treatment, and no debt or requirement to pay it back.

The NHS is not perfect, and the Michael Moore 'Documentary' is flawed, and you are right though of course, somebody does pay for it in the end. The idea is simply that we all pay for each other to be well, and this goes back through time, to our forefathers (well, 1948) who set it up, people down the years who have contributed and people today, when you are hurting, they are all there for you, and it is a wonderful thing.

I sound like a bit of an old romantic there.

Everybody needs a bit of romantisism every so often. Sicko is flawed as a documentary becasue its biased but it does bring up some really good points. While Michael Moore is guilty of being to showy and not factual enough its still a good starting point. Most importantly it causes debate which is essential for society to be healthy.

I think we're getting a little off topic now as debates often can but the point still stands, for republicans (I assume thats your political orientation Reaper) it is essential to leave behind the fear of "The reds" and accept a less extreme right wing view point. During the recent republican primaries the rest of the world looked on with horror at the view points of people who were seriously being considered as presidential candidates its un believable that somebody making statements like "there's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military, but your kids can't openly celebrate Christmas" could seriously be considered as a presidential candidate. As weak as Obama looks if the Economy starts to look up anytime near the elections it could be game over for Mitt romney.

[reaper239]

Alright, first of all, what is going on in China, North Korea and used to in the USSR isn't socialism. It's called that, but it really isn't. It's a hybrid of dictatorship and socialism, so you can't really blame socialism for the problems those people face (also, quoting North Korea as an example is like quoting Nazi Germany as an example. You wreck your own credibility by doing so. It's an effective scare tactic against those who are either dumb or completely ignorant of what goes on outside their bedroom, but otherwise you might want to drop it from your arguments).

correct, it is a form of socialism called communism, the big scare here during the cold war. however, they all, communism/socialism/marxism/nazism, fall under the same umbrella of strong central government, and to shorten i called it socialism. not entirely accurate, but close enough. kind of like how a democracy and republic are different in specific details, but they are fundamentally similar to the point that you can refer to both as a form of democracy. and in what way does citing north korea wreck my crdeibility? just because facts are ugly doesn't make them less applicable. kind of like citing nazi germany. but what about the other examples i cited? examples like cuba, china, the USSR, columbia(this wasn't an original example but i'll go ahead and throw it in there), zambia, algeria, bolivia, what about any of those examples?


Now, speaking of Europe as a single whole is another issue I have a problem with. Southern European countries are in economic death throes, but the north is (for the most part) doing pretty ok. Our countries aren't a trillion dollars in debt, Germany's one of the most powerful economies in the world and the Nordic countries are doing ok, all things considered (especially Norway, cheeky pricks). Sure, there are overspanning issues in Europe that affect everyone, comes with the common currency and trade area, but categorically putting every European country in the same basket is just wrong and doesn't help your argument.

everyone tied to the same currency, goes down with that currency. it's like the US: the way the US was initially designed was a union of independent nation states. every one had it's own currency, every one ruled itself, and then the confederate government was discarded in favor of a federal government that had more authority to provide for the common defence and regulate commerce between states. this included making a common currency. 200 years later, no matter what one state does, if the whole currency sinks, they're going down with the ship. true, one state can be better prepared than others but they can't escape it. likewise, if one member on the EU tanks, it brings everyone down. now, it's funny you mentioned germany, because i have a prediction: within a year, germany's economy will tank, just like the rest of the EU will unless the member nations start jumping ship. granted, that'll screw those still in the euro, but what would you prefer, saving your own people at the expense of an already screwed group, or going down with them? here's what's happening in germany, feel free to check this yourself: their economy is superheating, kind of like the US housing market did, except it's their entire economy (you remember the US housing bubble burst right? imagine that on a national scale) the rate of inflation is going up in germany, as a result the people know that their 20 euros won't buy as much next week as it does this week, and so the people go out and buy more this week of what they will want next week. but this can only continue to the point that it is no longer fiscally sound to do so. when the rate of inflation reaches a point where people can no longer afford this week what they won't be able to afford next week either, they will hold onto their money and the whole thing will blow up. i want everyone here to take special note of this paragragh. you don't have to believe me now, but keep an eye on germany.


Now, those things being said, I am a believer in capitalism. I believe that a person should be rewarded according to his/her worth and input. I am not studying my ass off and taking responsibilities to not be rewarded for it in the end. And of course I don't like paying taxes, I would much rather keep the money myself. But I also enjoy the fact that I have FREE EDUCATION UP TO DOCTORAL LEVEL (multiple doctorates if I want them), free roads and free healthcare.

you live in finland right? how many of your "free" universities are in the top 50 in the world? how about the top 100? unfortunately, according to the Times Higher Education University ranking (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/mar/15/top-100-universities-times-higher-education) there aren't any (unless finland is the netherlands, in which case you've got one) where as the US is just seven shy of having more than any other nation combined at 44 of the top 100. i think i'll keep paying for my quality education myself. at the same time, roads and infrastucture is managed by the state (for which i pay taxes) and i have stated in another thread (http://www.zombiepodcast.com/forum/showthread.php?3441-i-m-moving-to-florida) how i can take care of my own healthcare and don't have to wait until i'm already dead to see a doctor.


Socialism and capitalism are both bad when taken to extremes, like every concept. There is a middle ground to be found, the sweetspot where the individual freedoms and entrepreneurial spirit of capitalism are met by the obvious benefits of everyone chipping in for a commond good that you gain from socialism. And as someone living in a far more "socialist" country than you Reaper, I never fail to burst out laughing when you Americans tout around the word "socialism" or "socialist" in your politics. Your most left winged politicians are more right winged than our most right winged conservatives :D

thank goodness we haven't reached that level yet. i would rather if the government left the community spirit to the communities that forge them. i'd rather keep my hard earned money and take care of myself, than give my money to someone else who can then take care of someone else and tell me what to do. the only people that benefit from socialism are those that don't want to work, and i hate to think that i am hard at work supporting the newest generation of welfare slugs who are making it harder to pay my own damn bills.

[reaper239]

Everybody needs a bit of romantisism every so often. Sicko is flawed as a documentary becasue its biased but it does bring up some really good points. While Michael Moore is guilty of being to showy and not factual enough its still a good starting point. Most importantly it causes debate which is essential for society to be healthy.

I think we're getting a little off topic now as debates often can but the point still stands, for republicans (I assume thats your political orientation Reaper) it is essential to leave behind the fear of "The reds" and accept a less extreme right wing view point. During the recent republican primaries the rest of the world looked on with horror at the view points of people who were seriously being considered as presidential candidates its un believable that somebody making statements like "there's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military, but your kids can't openly celebrate Christmas" could seriously be considered as a presidential candidate. As weak as Obama looks if the Economy starts to look up anytime near the elections it could be game over for Mitt romney.

i'm a constitutionalist, but i see your point. and as to the whole "gays and Christmas" comment, don't you think that's wrong? one group of people can be told not to celebrate their views in public but another can? you don't see a double standard there? i can't say to any man who wants to serve his country that he can't (i mean can't in a moral way, my world view simply won't let me) no matter which way he swings, and i expect that people will give me the same courtesy in regards to my belief.

also, herman cain was my man, but we (the American people) let the media assassinate him from the race. that's great right? the only candidate with actual busines sense, the only one with first hand knowledge of economics, and we let him be cut from the race by false allegations.

[yarri]

It is in the sense that somebody who has never paid any Income tax or national insurance can receive the same treatment as me, who has paid both for nearly 30 years. To them, it is free healthcare, and that is the way we tend to 'think' of it, as, were I to fall ill and need £100,000 worth of treatment, I don't have that sort of money, but I would still get the treatment, and no debt or requirement to pay it back.

The NHS is not perfect, and the Michael Moore 'Documentary' is flawed, and you are right though of course, somebody does pay for it in the end. The idea is simply that we all pay for each other to be well, and this goes back through time, to our forefathers (well, 1948) who set it up, people down the years who have contributed and people today, when you are hurting, they are all there for you, and it is a wonderful thing.

I sound like a bit of an old romantic there.
As I gave birth to two children on the uk national health I'm very aware of its strengths and weakness. I do not agree that it should be considered free if you don't pay into it you still pay in some fashion for the care you receive be it in increased cost of basic items the costs are commuted .

[Luna Guardian]

correct, it is a form of socialism called communism, the big scare here during the cold war. however, they all, communism/socialism/marxism/nazism, fall under the same umbrella of strong central government, and to shorten i called it socialism. not entirely accurate, but close enough

Also incorrect. A strong centralized government does not mean socialism or communism, it can just as well be a dictatorship or an oligarchy. Also, I'm arguing that what's going on in North Korea is neither communism nor socialism, but pure dictatorship.


everyone tied to the same currency, goes down with that currency.

True, but then you state right away that member countries can jump ship. Unlike the US, Germany still has manufacturing industry and intelligent designed economic policies. Unlike the US, Germany still makes things, things in high demand around the world such as good cars. The EU is a good idea on paper, it is the implementation that's been done badly. Too much expansion, too little regulation (ironically, right?) and not enough transparency by some of the member states, namely the south. The north still functions pretty well and should your scenario happen, I in turn predict that the northern EU countries would keep the level of cooperation that they have now and leave the south to its own devices. But as things are now, the north will try to stabilize and resucitate the south. If successful, great. If not, we're all fucked (us, you, Russia, Asia, Africa, the Middle East...), so it doesn't really matter. We'll slide back on economic development a couple of decades, maybe 50 years. It'll hurt like hell, but humanity will adapt.


the rate of inflation is going up in germany, as a result the people know that their 20 euros won't buy as much next week as it does this week, and so the people go out and buy more this week of what they will want next week. but this can only continue to the point that it is no longer fiscally sound to do so. when the rate of inflation reaches a point where people can no longer afford this week what they won't be able to afford next week either, they will hold onto their money and the whole thing will blow up. i want everyone here to take special note of this paragragh. you don't have to believe me now, but keep an eye on germany.

You really are fond of scare tactics. Alright, since the super inflation before WWII, the highest priority in Germany has been the control of inflation. Recently, the German federal government allowed the inflation rate to rise, but it is still well below 2%. In fact, it's the same as the US inflation rate. However, unlike the US inflation rate, the German inflation rate has stayed relatively stable. Now, Germany can increase it's inflation with no worries by a further 0,3% or by 17 percent of it's current level to a grand total of 2% and still remain perfectly safe and happy. Good thing they have a strong government that can do these kinds of corrective things, right?


you live in finland right? how many of your "free" universities are in the top 50 in the world? how about the top 100? unfortunately, according to the Times Higher Education University ranking (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/mar/15/top-100-universities-times-higher-education) there aren't any (unless finland is the netherlands, in which case you've got one) where as the US is just seven shy of having more than any other nation combined at 44 of the top 100. i think i'll keep paying for my quality education myself. at the same time, roads and infrastucture is managed by the state (for which i pay taxes) and i have stated in another thread (http://www.zombiepodcast.com/forum/showthread.php?3441-i-m-moving-to-florida) how i can take care of my own healthcare and don't have to wait until i'm already dead to see a doctor.

That is true. However, unlike US students, who either have to be a) from wealthy families, b) get a scholarship or c) get in huge debts at a very young age that they have no guarantees they can ever pay, we don't need to worry about that. Now, I am not saying our system is perfect, no system ever is, but our universities do a good job with their student pools. You have to calculate in the relative sizes of countries as well and the sheer amount of universities. Also, our education system is the best/top three in the world. So I think we're doing ok here.


thank goodness we haven't reached that level yet. i would rather if the government left the community spirit to the communities that forge them. i'd rather keep my hard earned money and take care of myself, than give my money to someone else who can then take care of someone else and tell me what to do. the only people that benefit from socialism are those that don't want to work, and i hate to think that i am hard at work supporting the newest generation of welfare slugs who are making it harder to pay my own damn bills.

Alright, you've made your point. You hate having any government supervision at all. So I present you this question (going to extremes, but hey, for the sake of argument), would you be happy in an anarchy? You would have to pay no taxes, there'd be no government interference with businesses, rich could get as rich as they want and poor would be left to die on the streets, unless they murder someone for the boots they wear? Medication costs fortunes, so pharmacies would need to be guarded heavily to keep desperate masses from looting them. Doctors might be kidnapped to work as slaves in the slums. But at least business leaders and managers would get rich without having to think about things like "ethics" or "morality". As long as money keeps coming in, right?

Oh, and as long as we're talking about balancing the budget (here comes a cliché. you have been warned) how about the US cut down on military spending? Do you REALLY need all those shiznits and whazzits? You can glass the planet already, who's seriously going to mess with you? China does business with you (and owns you, by the way), Russia's nuts enough but no-where near ready for the next 50 years at least, North Korea ditto, South American countries aren't able and terrorists don't fight a stand up army fight.

Oh, and I found this funny. Related, but not directly. A second cousin, twice removed?
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/531616_929788489748_1496054331_n.jpg

[reaper239]

i never said that all strong central governments socialistic, i said all socialistic governments were strong central governments, though i will admit i may not have been entirely clear. when i refer...

[Solanine]

i'm a constitutionalist, but i see your point. and as to the whole "gays and Christmas" comment, don't you think that's wrong? one group of people can be told not to celebrate their views in public but another can? you don't see a double standard there? i can't say to any man who wants to serve his country that he can't (i mean can't in a moral way, my world view simply won't let me) no matter which way he swings, and i expect that people will give me the same courtesy in regards to my belief.

also, herman cain was my man, but we (the American people) let the media assassinate him from the race. that's great right? the only candidate with actual busines sense, the only one with first hand knowledge of economics, and we let him be cut from the race by false allegations.

My problem with that statement was that he used the sexuality of the soldier which was totally irelevant. He used it with negative connotations as if the ability of that man to be gay was secondary to the childs right to celebrate christmas. All people have the right to celebrate christmas in their own homes and in places of worship and in public places. But not in buildings owned by or operated by the government as part of the "seperation of church and state".

[reaper239]

My problem with that statement was that he used the sexuality of the soldier which was totally irelevant. He used it with negative connotations as if the ability of that man to be gay was secondary to the childs right to celebrate christmas. All people have the right to celebrate christmas in their own homes and in places of worship and in public places. But not in buildings owned by or operated by the government as part of the "seperation of church and state".

that is simply not true, seperation of church and state isn't in the constitution. where that came from was jefferson writing a letter to a concerned citizen in which he explained that the constitution and bill of rights "created a wall of seperation between church and state." the first amendment states that the federal government shall erect no law concerning an establishment of religion or prohibiting the practice thereof. the intent is so that if the president adopts some whackjob religion, say frisbieism, the belief that when you die your soul goes up on the roof, like a frisbie, that he cannot impose that religion on anyone else. no man can. it has nothing to do with keeping religion out of government, but keeping government out of religion. of course the principles of the constitution have been so disregarded over the years, i'm not sure we can go back to the way things were supposed to be.

i understand where you're coming from, but it is somewat relevant. homosexuals were band from openly serving in the US military because it affects cohesivness in a unit. think about it like this, if you had a daughter, would you want her to take a shower in open stalls in the same place that i am? well, at the same time, i don't want to shower with anyone who may find me attractive enough to come onto me. it goes to the same reason that women don't serve in combat arms, women would be a huge distraction to soldiers who need tobe completely focused on the mission. that's the history of it. it comes down to beliefs, the fed is saying that one set of beliefs is OK in connection to the government but not another. that's where i see a double standard. i don't think he was saying it to be derogatory to gays, but using that as an example.

[Solanine]

that is simply not true, seperation of church and state isn't in the constitution. where that came from was jefferson writing a letter to a concerned citizen in which he explained that the constitution and bill of rights "created a wall of seperation between church and state." the first amendment states that the federal government shall erect no law concerning an establishment of religion or prohibiting the practice thereof. the intent is so that if the president adopts some whackjob religion, say frisbieism, the belief that when you die your soul goes up on the roof, like a frisbie, that he cannot impose that religion on anyone else. no man can. it has nothing to do with keeping religion out of government, but keeping government out of religion. of course the principles of the constitution have been so disregarded over the years, i'm not sure we can go back to the way things were supposed to be.

i understand where you're coming from, but it is somewat relevant. homosexuals were band from openly serving in the US military because it affects cohesivness in a unit. think about it like this, if you had a daughter, would you want her to take a shower in open stalls in the same place that i am? well, at the same time, i don't want to shower with anyone who may find me attractive enough to come onto me. it goes to the same reason that women don't serve in combat arms, women would be a huge distraction to soldiers who need tobe completely focused on the mission. that's the history of it. it comes down to beliefs, the fed is saying that one set of beliefs is OK in connection to the government but not another. that's where i see a double standard. i don't think he was saying it to be derogatory to gays, but using that as an example.

The fact is if you allow one religious event in government property you must therefore allow all religious events to be celebrated. If not then the government is seen to favour one religion in particular. That is NEVER a good thing. Especially when it comes down to forcing a religion on people. Take schools, religious groups often try to convert children while they are young and likely to beleive what they're being told. If the government supports just one religion and makes it mandatory in schools then the majority of the populatoon base becomes part of that religion. And then the government has a perfect vehicle for controlling the population. Think about it this way, how mnay crimes of atrocity have been committed over the years in the name of religion compared to those committed in the name of the state. And as far as being derogatory toward gays we'll never know but especially considering the stigma that comes with the republican party.

Anyway back to the original point, it was in no way socialism that caused the problem in europe. Many factors including lack of regulation and the poor execution of "the single currency" are to blame. In fact poor capatilism is threatening to push Europe apart with many countries running for cover towards the far right or left.