The only reason it doens't work for us is because we're stubborn jackasses.lowing wrote:
Looks like Obama can no longer defend his bullshit socialist agenda any longer, why? Because he has proven to himself it does not work.
Wonder if our nobel prize winner for "hope" is lying this time as well. We will see.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … on_LEADTop
lol yeah i'm sure thats it.UnkleRukus wrote:
The only reason it doens't work for us is because we're stubborn jackasses.lowing wrote:
Looks like Obama can no longer defend his bullshit socialist agenda any longer, why? Because he has proven to himself it does not work.
Wonder if our nobel prize winner for "hope" is lying this time as well. We will see.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … on_LEADTop
Last edited by lowing (2011-01-22 16:45:44)
The idea is sound. The implementation was poor.lowing wrote:
lol yeah i'm sure thats it.UnkleRukus wrote:
The only reason it doens't work for us is because we're stubborn jackasses.lowing wrote:
Looks like Obama can no longer defend his bullshit socialist agenda any longer, why? Because he has proven to himself it does not work.
Wonder if our nobel prize winner for "hope" is lying this time as well. We will see.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … on_LEADTop
It has nothing to so with the fact that it is not sustainable or productive.
How isn't it sustainable or productive, enlighten me.lowing wrote:
lol yeah i'm sure thats it.UnkleRukus wrote:
The only reason it doens't work for us is because we're stubborn jackasses.lowing wrote:
Looks like Obama can no longer defend his bullshit socialist agenda any longer, why? Because he has proven to himself it does not work.
Wonder if our nobel prize winner for "hope" is lying this time as well. We will see.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … on_LEADTop
It has nothing to do with the fact that it is not sustainable or productive.
USSR.UnkleRukus wrote:
How isn't it sustainable or productive, enlighten me.lowing wrote:
lol yeah i'm sure thats it.UnkleRukus wrote:
The only reason it doens't work for us is because we're stubborn jackasses.
It has nothing to do with the fact that it is not sustainable or productive.
I counter with Sweden.DBBrinson1 wrote:
USSR.UnkleRukus wrote:
How isn't it sustainable or productive, enlighten me.lowing wrote:
lol yeah i'm sure thats it.
It has nothing to do with the fact that it is not sustainable or productive.
Sweden thrives because it has outsized mining deposits in comparison to its population.UnkleRukus wrote:
I counter with Sweden.DBBrinson1 wrote:
USSR.UnkleRukus wrote:
How isn't it sustainable or productive, enlighten me.
The idea is not sound if the practice doesn't work.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
The idea is sound. The implementation was poor.lowing wrote:
lol yeah i'm sure thats it.UnkleRukus wrote:
The only reason it doens't work for us is because we're stubborn jackasses.
It has nothing to so with the fact that it is not sustainable or productive.
Not really. High unemployment rates and low growth rates are normal in those countries.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
Its works perfectly well in dozens of other countries.
What does that have to do with it's form of government.JohnG@lt wrote:
Sweden thrives because it has outsized mining deposits in comparison to its population.UnkleRukus wrote:
I counter with Sweden.DBBrinson1 wrote:
USSR.
ALso North Korea, China had to move toward capitalism to thrive. Greece, isn't France going through riots now because the govt. recognizes it can no longer sustain its social programs to the level the French are accustomed?DBBrinson1 wrote:
USSR.UnkleRukus wrote:
How isn't it sustainable or productive, enlighten me.lowing wrote:
lol yeah i'm sure thats it.
It has nothing to do with the fact that it is not sustainable or productive.
Last edited by lowing (2011-01-22 16:58:35)
It succeeds as a socialist nation (and has become decidedly less socialist since 1980 because it was indeed failing) because of its mining deposits, not because the form of government is sustainable in any natural way.UnkleRukus wrote:
What does that have to do with it's form of government.JohnG@lt wrote:
Sweden thrives because it has outsized mining deposits in comparison to its population.UnkleRukus wrote:
I counter with Sweden.
NK is more of a Military Dictatorship or a Police State, not a Communist/Socialist state.lowing wrote:
ALso North Korea, China had to move toward capitalism to thrive.DBBrinson1 wrote:
USSR.UnkleRukus wrote:
How isn't it sustainable or productive, enlighten me.
So it's found a happy balance of it's resources, population and government.JohnG@lt wrote:
It succeeds as a socialist nation (and has become decidedly less socialist since 1980 because it was indeed failing) because of its mining deposits, not because the form of government is sustainable in any natural way.UnkleRukus wrote:
What does that have to do with it's form of government.JohnG@lt wrote:
Sweden thrives because it has outsized mining deposits in comparison to its population.
We've gone over this before man, I know that we have the worst debt in the country. I guess I'm just not understanding the whole problem fully, no one has ever tried to actually explain it to me.JohnG@lt wrote:
Also Rukus, your state is the most socialist of any in the US and it also has the highest per capita debt levels. It also has such high tax rates that almost the entire tax base has fled and you are now dependent on your universities for tax revenue.
No, not really. Without the natural resources it wouldn't be able to sustain most of its social programs. Same goes for Norway and its oil fields. Or Canada and its mining/oil/timber. The US does not have the natural resources that those nations possess and thus it would not work. Unless you have exportable commodities the system falls flat on its face, and if you do have those commodities the system lasts as long as they do. You're mortgaging the future for today.UnkleRukus wrote:
So it's found a happy balance of it's resources, population and government.JohnG@lt wrote:
It succeeds as a socialist nation (and has become decidedly less socialist since 1980 because it was indeed failing) because of its mining deposits, not because the form of government is sustainable in any natural way.UnkleRukus wrote:
What does that have to do with it's form of government.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2011-01-22 17:02:14)
Uh Sweden is a parliamentary democracy. It's political culture is socialist but it's government is open, free, and democratic.JohnG@lt wrote:
It succeeds as a socialist nation (and has become decidedly less socialist since 1980 because it was indeed failing) because of its mining deposits, not because the form of government is sustainable in any natural way.UnkleRukus wrote:
What does that have to do with it's form of government.JohnG@lt wrote:
Sweden thrives because it has outsized mining deposits in comparison to its population.
They might beat us in one of those categories but no one beats us in all three.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
Ok I must have missed the point where we were arguing about pure socialist governing and not socialist elements within countries. Because the point I was making was that the are many countries that use some "socialist" systems (such as healthcare) that are doing very well and in some cases better than America (in terms of growth/unemployment/standard of living).
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2011-01-22 17:03:35)
I think you'll find that Australia does (assuming that you mean GDP growth).JohnG@lt wrote:
They might beat us in one of those categories but no one beats us in all three.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
Ok I must have missed the point where we were arguing about pure socialist governing and not socialist elements within countries. Because the point I was making was that the are many countries that use some "socialist" systems (such as healthcare) that are doing very well and in some cases better than America (in terms of growth/unemployment/standard of living).
Edit - And no, that's not a rah rah America statement.