SeVeR

Every time a racist figures out how to use the internet, a baby hummingbird dies..

This may be a good thing as it would possibly increase compe!@#$%^&*ion, something that many people claim is lacking in the oil industry.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idU...eedName=topNews Obama proposes taxing the profits of oil companies. This is of course rejected by the conservative McCain (Bush clone?). I am with Obama on this one. "For eight long years, our president sacrificed investments in healthcare, and education, and energy, and infrastructure on the altar of tax breaks for big corporations and wealthy CEOs – trillions of dollars in giveaways that proved neither compassionate nor conservative," What are your views?

A good example of how people cherry-pick the stats they want to support their argument.

If you add universal health care, then you don't have to pay as much welfare out in the first place, since the lower classes wouldn't have to pay for health insurance anymore. The fact is the health-care companies are making billions in profit from being in charge of our health. Think how much better life would be for everyone if the government ran it for no profit at all. I walked into a hospital in the UK three years ago with stomach pain, and was operated on the same evening for appendicitis. No cost, no waiting. I spent the next five days in a hospital bed recovering. No cost. I was given drugs and food. No cost. If the UK can do it, then why can't a richer country like the US do it? Hillary Clinton tried it 15 years back, and was immediately savaged through the media by lobbyists paid for by health companies. These companies "donate" to politicians, or what any other person would call bribery. It's so incredibly corrupt. I'm actually not much of a supporter of welfare, but your comments NBV are shockingly exagerated. Also, wouldn't universal health care make those crappy fryer jobs WITH NO BENEFITS more attractive? Now they don't have to worry about what they're covered for, and neither does the employer. Again you take things to the extreme with this "radical tax on the wealthy" talk. No-one has even mentioned a figure. So of course a "radical tax" is unfair... whatever you define radical as is immaterial since calling it radical immediately means its unfair... This argument is silly because no-one is actually saying anything. We just keep advocating principles with no meaningful figures because none of us know the ins and outs of the tax system, the welfare system, or the health insurance system. It's just "Conservatism is better, bla bla bla" or "Liberal Socialism is better, bla bla bla" Probably my last post on this argument.

The poverty rate of America is actually less than the UK (Nationmaster), i think i said that last time. Do you think other countries don't also have "metropolitan areas" at a number proportional with their population size too? Either way, there is nothing special about America's poverty rate with a higher population. I don't see how a larger population makes employing socialist health and welfare more difficult. It's a bigger job, but there is bigger man-power and bigger resources, making it an identical amount of effort for the country as a whole. America has more wealth per person than many of the countries where these systems work. This is the main point. What exactly about welfare, government health-care and proportional taxation makes a country have a socialist economy? No-one is saying the government should take control of all private business, get rid of the stock markets, and nationalise the energy industry. Just look at the UK, which is doing fine with employing these socialist principles in a capitalist economy. There is nothing socialist about the UK economy.

I should have been more specific... When have i ever talked about socialist economies? I am making a distinction between socialist principles such as proportional taxation, welfare and government health care, and socialist economies where the government takes control over private business. Most of the countries on the various lists that you and Astro discuss employ these socialist principles and reap the rewards. That is the point i think everyone is trying to get you to realise. "As for my populations I'm stating that simply because you can get a high GDP and HDI with a very small country does not mean that if you scale that countries population by ~6000% that they would still have a high GDP and HDI." So you're not certain... or even vaguely sure that population size has an effect on the effectiveness of socialist principles? I wonder why you bring it up. Then i realise that America is by far the most populated country among the rich nations of the world, and i see why. Lets blame the Middle East's abundance of sand for their aggression. A unique characteristic of a country doesn't have to coincide with a unique effect. -EDIT- From Astro's post: "Otherwise you're completely ignoring everything else to create an overly simplistic comparison." Is exactly what i was thinking. My reply being the same: "I never said we should have pure socialist economies. All I said was the US needs more aspects of socialism in its system."

NBVegita, you keep talking about population size as if it's supposed to support your argument. So what exactly is it about a large population that makes socialism difficult. In your response to my post: Yes, i am talking about socialism. What i'm saying is America has demonised something that actually works. When a government actively tries to influence the minds of it's populace into despising something for reasons that are a distortion of the facts, i would call it propaganda. I don't know how you define it.

Putting health-care and child-care into the hands of companies who's only goal is to turn a profit will always be a recipe for disaster. Government is supposed to be there to provide the services we all want and need, but is instead taking "donations" from these health-care companies (Hillary Clinton) to take a route that keeps the status quo intact. When a politician goes far enough into the realms of socialist health-care, they are hit by a wave of propaganda from lobbyists, paid for by health-care companies, shouting "down with socialism", on government-influenced TV Networks... The people are too stupid to know what the heck is going on thanks to a deteriating education system, and those who do realise it don't do anything about it because they're still given the right to choose... even if their choice is outweighed by those who have lost that right due to sucking up the crap that someones else wants them to think. America, "Land of the Free"... Hah!

This kind of argument is always the same. The leftists propose taxing people at a rate proportional to their wealth. They propose that the government uses this money to provide a first rate health service and education system. The conservatives called this socialism... end of argument. The thing is, the leftists, usually knoww where this argument comes from; they know the American government has been circulating anti-socialist propaganda for decades, while Europe has been making these principles work with democracy, enjoying a much better way of life. Of course the conservatives will claim not to have been influenced by the society they live in, but they offer no real alternate solution other than a continuation of the status quo. What lends support to the conservative argument is the wasteful spending of the conservative government that they themselves have voted for! This is quite frankly ridiculous, as conservatives support a government and then use it's mistakes to justify voting for another government of the same kind! "Oh we must vote for a conservative government because governments spend too much money". It just begs an explanation, but i don't even try to understand these people. I think the problem is they don't understand themselves. The above poster, no, the government doesn't keep money. They overspend, they try to be the hero of the people by lowering taxes, but then covertly tax us even more in other ways. The Fed prints money and loans it to the government to use in Iraq. But America doesn't become "wealthier" when the Fed prints more money, it simply diverts the wealth into the hands of people the government are paying for their war. Average Americans keep the money they have, but they become less wealthy because their dollars are now worth less due to all these new dollars being printed. Thus, the value of the dollar is extremely low and Americans are hit with a massive invisible tax on every dollar they have.

Actually, taking half of Donald Trump's money and burning it would help the poor. By reducing the amount of dollars in circulation we would undoubtedly increase the value of the dollars still in circulation. The value of the dollar is stupidly low at the moment because the Fed keeps printing more money to loan to the government, thus devaluing the dollars of everyone in the country. In effect, the people of America are paying for the war. Since when should a government use effort to get money, and how is this an argument? The goverment is there to be the back-bone of the country, providing services to all. You all put money in, you all get something out. I'm not sure i understand. % of 5 billion is more than % of 3 billion.

With all the extra hurricanes from global warming we should have plenty of wind power! I still say we should harness the power of farts.

Exactly.

I thought Obama got where he is for being an eloquent and powerful public speaker who, in stark contrast to the current President, is intelligent and well-read. People are stupid and will vote for stupid reasons. Obama can't help being black and can't stop people voting for him on that alone; but what really tells me Obama is a good candidate is that he's got the vote of the educated class. !@#$%^&* people vote for the Republicans because they're more Christian and Patriotic (apparently)... the Democrats need a bunch of stupid people voting for them for a change, and if they can get the black vote or the women vote, then good on them.

Why is it convenient? Why does it baffle you?

Isn't coal one of the most polluting methods of generating electricity imaginable?

I do not agree with the rules of this topic or the offensive superior at!@#$%^&*ude of the thread starter.

What about a big supermarket chain that is able to out-compete local shops for prices because it has low comparative operating costs due to a large amount of stores/customers. That's not a fixed supply, but neither is the health-insurance business.

I agree with Ducky; I think most Dems will vote Obama if Clinton isn't nominated. The more states/votes he steals of Republicans the better. I think he's got more vote stealing power than vote losing power.

With the health-care companies having 50 million extra customers, they will be able to lower prices a bit with all the extra profit. It doesn't really make-up for the loss of choice in deciding whether to part with your money or not.

Because as far as i can tell, Hillary's plan would force you to pay for insurance whether you want it or not. Mandatory health-care is not socialised health-care.

Not as socialised health-care. It's still privatised, except with Hillary's plan no-one would have a choice about whether to buy insurance... EDIT- which is why the health insurance companies love her.

Clinton is pathetic. She's so desperate to win that she's announcing policies that are completely unimportant, but which might grab a few votes from stupid Americans who think the price of gas runs their lives. It's detrimental to the political process. Following on from all her bitter comments, and the advert which tried to scare people into voting for her, i can only conclude that people who support Hillary are too stupid to think properly. She voted for the Iraq war, but now changes her mind simply because it helps her chances to win the nomination. She was once the champion of socialised health care (1993). Now she is the second most highly paid recipent of donations from health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and hospitals. Why? Because Hillary's new plan takes away the choice of Americans on whether or not to have insurance. The companies get 50 million extra quotes, and so they are more than happy to support Hillary's "universal" health plan. She's the friggin - lol

The fruits of American propaganda. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I do feel sorry for Iran because of what the American government/press has done to them. I understand there are lots of political reasons for Ethiopia to attack, but it's no coincidence that the two sides here are Muslim and Christian. There were strategic goals in the Crusades, or the attacks by the Ottoman Turks on Eastern Europe in the 14th-16th centuries. There was always a religious component that helped each side hate the other enough to go to war. Well, it's pre-9/11 and pre-Bush. I agree with your !@#$%^&*essment, but since 9/11 i'm pretty sure that strategic and economic interests involve having Christian governments rather than Islamic ones in Africa and thus religion, if not directly, is an important factor.

Yea, if the U.S. gives them billions of dollars in "aid" so they can buy fighter jets and tanks, then i'm sure they will win the conflict all by themselves. Afterall, it worked with Israel. I admit, i don't know enough about the conflict to say how "connected" to Al-Qaeda the Muslims in Somalia are, but i wouldn't put it past the U.S. to make false claims. They did it with Iraq and got away with it, they're doing it with Iran now, and if they do it in Somalia by killing these Muslims and saying they're buddies with Al-Qaeda... then who will do anything about it, right?