Re: The end is in sight

flipper wrote:
On Tue, 5 May 2009 18:07:21 +0200, "TheM" <DontNeedSpam@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:

"James Arthur" <bogusabdsqy@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:NJYLl.4570$b11.2109@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
TheM wrote:
"James Arthur" <bogusabdsqy@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:h1FLl.2352$fy.1574@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Eeyore wrote:
bill.sloman@xxxxxxxx wrote:

James Arthur <bogusabd...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Show me a country not fitting that description, one where socialism
pays for itself--as opposed to being subsidized by, say, a North Sea
oil bonanza--and you'll have my attention.

China's the only one that pops to mind...
You need a new mind, or at least a second hadn midn taht actually
works. Sweden, Germany, France, the Netherlands ...
What's truly hilarious that one of the lowest national debts is held by Russia ! The
USA's is over TEN times more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt

Graham


I specified self-supporting. Russia's surplus comes from nationalizing
their oilfields.
We give you a list and you hand-pick the only one that might not fully qualify
and flatly forget about all the others...

M
Well, you supplied one-liners, & I have to do the research & analysis.
You didn't provide facts or reasons why you think these countries'
socialism is a boon--self-supporting or accretive--rather than a burden to them.

So, your unstated logic and rationale aren't clear to me, and, I'm
allowed to sleep, aren't I?

Perusing Sweden's figures, I s'pose my query has to be refined.

Obviously the productive segment of any country can provide a living
for a certain number of non-workers. And all countries do that.

So it's a question of degree, and who bears the burden, and whether
and how much of this is a good thing. And it's a question of at
what level it finally breaks society's back, when the productive
find productivity is no longer worth their while and either flee,
outsource, or become slackers themselves.

And there's a question of mechanism and freedom: whether and what
the State should dictate and control, and what shall be left of
their own lives for the People to control and decide.

I'm glad that life in Sweden is agreeable to Swedes. They've got a
total population smaller than a big city here, distributed over a
land mass roughly the size of one of our largest states.

Revenue to the State is almost exactly 50% of GDP. That's a pretty
high burden on the taxpayers.

So who can tell us what burdens they manage to support with that
revenue? How many illegal (or legal) alien births do they pay
for? How many poor, elderly, and disabled live on the State?
Is it sustainable for the long term, or not? And lastly, what's
the judgement of others--how many people are flocking to Sweden,
to benefit?

Cheers,
James Arthur
I do not advocate socialistic approach, in fact I would put myself on the
right (although not as extremely as JT), but I find it ridiculous how violently
Americans react whenever a term "socialistic" is used.

To be fair about it you need to say 'some' Americans because there are
others who seem rather fond of 'socialism' and there's a fair number
of them in government right now.

I find it surprising you find it ridiculous because you're talking
about core, fundamental, principles of government. Would you be so
cavalier about mangling a few Bill of Rights principles?


Subsidizing some things can be beneficial to society and IS necessary.

You'd have to define what you mean by 'subsidizing' and how 'necessity
is determined.

Do you call building roads a 'subsidy'? Because that doesn't take from
one and give to another based on class or status. It's of mutual
benefit.

The only question is how much is just right and that varries from country
to country.

I think you may have just explained why those who oppose socialism do
so with such zeal. Because you've explained that, once started, it
becomes a, ho hum, 'matter of degree', no big deal.

It's always a matter of degree.

So, tell me why you have socialised Fire Brigades, Comrade!
Do you not worry that undeserving members of the proletariat will catch fire?


--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is rfc dying?
    ... How is pro science right wing? ... I am Pro Choice, Pro Science, Anti Religion and Pro Socialism. ... Most of those countries have also allowed themselves to be over run by ...
    (rec.food.cooking)
  • Alliance with liberation and independence movements
    ... of a peaceful, parliamentary, transition to socialism. ... if a new socialist government built upon capitalist ... project that had set down roots in Western industrialized countries, ... view, processes, those of capitalism, not outcomes, those of national ...
    (soc.politics.marxism)
  • Re: I just dont get it
    ... from him was a discussion on how socialism would destroy the US. ... guarantees an education (in some countries free, ... Does this mean that those who earn more pay more? ... In Canada the basic Federal tax rate is about 15.5% on income < 36,000. ...
    (alt.sports.baseball.bos-redsox)
  • Re: Facts confirmed by Dan Christensen (aka DCPROOF): most so-called Cuban "aid" is in fact trad
    ... Hansing said that these days the Cubans typically ask host countries ... It also pays a salary of $500 is paid. ... That's when they are at home in Cuba. ... The Cuban government. ...
    (soc.culture.cuba)
  • Re: World Democracy Emergency
    ... I support it because it, in the long run, gives a better society for ... many countries by politicians who are strongly opposed to socialism. ... on their own and it was that which destroyed Nazi Germany. ...
    (rec.scouting.issues)