|
|
|
|
On August 01 2012 08:17 Dagan159 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 08:10 xDaunt wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 01 2012 08:05 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 08:03 Adila wrote:Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney hailed Poland's economy Tuesday as something akin to a Republican dream: a place of small government, individual empowerment and free enterprise.
While it's true that Poland is one of Europe's fastest-growing economies and boasts dynamic entrepreneurs, Romney's depiction of Poland as a place of small government is debatable. Even 23 years after throwing off a communist command economy, the Polish government continues to have a strong presence in people's lives: it gives women $300 for each baby they have, doubling that sum for poor families; it fully funds state university educations; and it guarantees health care to all its 38 million citizens.
And while Poland's economic growth has certainly been impressive in recent years, this is partly the result of economic redistribution in the form of subsidies that have been flowing in from the European Union since it joined the bloc in 2004... SourceOh Mitt... just shut up, smile, and wave. I don't understand this. When Mitt tells the truth in the UK, he isn't being diplomatic. When he is diplomatic and kisses ass in public, he is attacked for his ass kissing not fitting with his purported ideology. The guy can't win, but that is politics. Bias against republicans in the media? No, couldn't be..... I think FOX more than makes up for republican representatives in the media. Overall I think its pretty damn even, except that rather thatn the news actually being independent there is just a fair amount of equally polarized stations.
Oh I agree. Things are much different than they used to be. When I refer to the "media," I'm basically referring to all of the news outlets other than Fox News.
|
On August 01 2012 07:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 05:44 Derez wrote:On August 01 2012 05:18 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 05:13 HunterX11 wrote:On August 01 2012 04:36 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 02:20 DoubleReed wrote:
Well isn't he partly accurate? I mean when the Israelis came didn't they immediately begin irrigating building infrastructure for the future? Why didn't the palestinians do that similarly? You can definitely make arguments for culture. At least at first. Right, that's exactly the point. You can look at any two populations with significant economic differences, and you almost inevitably will see significant cultural differences that are largely, if not predominantly, responsible for those economic differences. It applies in Europe. It applies in the US. It also applies in Israel and Palestine. Granted, the circumstances surrounding Israel and Palestine obviously make for a special case, but there is still an argument to be made that the Palestinians bear significant responsibility for their current situation. Oh please, this is blatant racism and colonialist apologism. The truth's a bitch, ain't it? The apologists are the ones who won't hold people accountable for their failures. Cultural explanations are not taken very seriously in academic circles because there's no empirical evidence for them, even Weber's original formulation got disproven a few years back. In modern economic thinking, the much more relevant influence is the influence of economic circumstances on culture. To take use an obvious example: time is only relevant if you have somewhere to be at set hours, which is why watches are still uncommon in rural africa. Once a country starts developing economically, its culture automatically becomes more aligned with 'efficiency' or whatever term you want to use. The germans were once considered the laziest people in europe. The same went for americans, fins, irish, asians and pretty much every other nation that was once poor but is now rich. The reason the middle east is poorer than Israel is not because their culture impairs them, its because their own political structure and economic system do. Corruption, nepotism, state control over the most profitable sectors, you name it. Even in the 'tolerance' story, I'm not sure if tolerance creates economic succes or the economic succes creates tolerance. He makes that claim in the last sentence of his article, but offers no proof for the direction of the causal relation. I don't mean to say that there's no influence of culture on economics, but its minimal compared to the influence the other way around. Otherwise Germans, Americans, Japanese, Koreans, Taiwanese would still have to be lazy and be in dire economic situations. There's no way that culture isn't a factor. It may not be the main factor, but when it comes to economic development there is never just one main factor that overrides all others. Culture plays a huge role in creating the societal structures that underpin a society, which, absolutely matter. A specific example would be that in many Islamic countries it is illegal to pay interest. That has a huge impact on finance. Places like Dubai have recently worked around that with Sukuk bonds and they've been able to do quite a bit because of that. But it is a cultural choice - do you follow Islamic law strictly or not? - and with that choice comes economic consequences.
Obviously everything is taken into consideration, I guess where people disagree with is which factor counts for more.
I'd have to agree more with Derez, the political and economical system is definitely more important than just culture, I mean just look at North Korea vs. South Korea. Same people, same culture, same language, same history yet...
|
On August 01 2012 08:29 RavenLoud wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 07:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 01 2012 05:44 Derez wrote:On August 01 2012 05:18 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 05:13 HunterX11 wrote:On August 01 2012 04:36 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 02:20 DoubleReed wrote:
Well isn't he partly accurate? I mean when the Israelis came didn't they immediately begin irrigating building infrastructure for the future? Why didn't the palestinians do that similarly? You can definitely make arguments for culture. At least at first. Right, that's exactly the point. You can look at any two populations with significant economic differences, and you almost inevitably will see significant cultural differences that are largely, if not predominantly, responsible for those economic differences. It applies in Europe. It applies in the US. It also applies in Israel and Palestine. Granted, the circumstances surrounding Israel and Palestine obviously make for a special case, but there is still an argument to be made that the Palestinians bear significant responsibility for their current situation. Oh please, this is blatant racism and colonialist apologism. The truth's a bitch, ain't it? The apologists are the ones who won't hold people accountable for their failures. Cultural explanations are not taken very seriously in academic circles because there's no empirical evidence for them, even Weber's original formulation got disproven a few years back. In modern economic thinking, the much more relevant influence is the influence of economic circumstances on culture. To take use an obvious example: time is only relevant if you have somewhere to be at set hours, which is why watches are still uncommon in rural africa. Once a country starts developing economically, its culture automatically becomes more aligned with 'efficiency' or whatever term you want to use. The germans were once considered the laziest people in europe. The same went for americans, fins, irish, asians and pretty much every other nation that was once poor but is now rich. The reason the middle east is poorer than Israel is not because their culture impairs them, its because their own political structure and economic system do. Corruption, nepotism, state control over the most profitable sectors, you name it. Even in the 'tolerance' story, I'm not sure if tolerance creates economic succes or the economic succes creates tolerance. He makes that claim in the last sentence of his article, but offers no proof for the direction of the causal relation. I don't mean to say that there's no influence of culture on economics, but its minimal compared to the influence the other way around. Otherwise Germans, Americans, Japanese, Koreans, Taiwanese would still have to be lazy and be in dire economic situations. There's no way that culture isn't a factor. It may not be the main factor, but when it comes to economic development there is never just one main factor that overrides all others. Culture plays a huge role in creating the societal structures that underpin a society, which, absolutely matter. A specific example would be that in many Islamic countries it is illegal to pay interest. That has a huge impact on finance. Places like Dubai have recently worked around that with Sukuk bonds and they've been able to do quite a bit because of that. But it is a cultural choice - do you follow Islamic law strictly or not? - and with that choice comes economic consequences. Obviously everything is taken into consideration, I guess where people disagree with is which factor counts for more. I'd have to agree more with Derez, the political and economical system is definitely more important than just culture, I mean just look at North Korea vs. South Korea. Same people, same culture, same language, same history yet...
I think many people are taking far too narrow of a view of culture. South Korea's culture (its values and way of life) is very different from North Korea's.
|
I saw it Eris! 
Anyways, I'm surprised Mitt did so poorly on this recent trip. Certainly, the media is being incredibly nitpicky about some stuff, but he's a nominee for President. There are no free passes in this race.
|
On August 01 2012 08:05 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 08:03 Adila wrote:Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney hailed Poland's economy Tuesday as something akin to a Republican dream: a place of small government, individual empowerment and free enterprise.
While it's true that Poland is one of Europe's fastest-growing economies and boasts dynamic entrepreneurs, Romney's depiction of Poland as a place of small government is debatable. Even 23 years after throwing off a communist command economy, the Polish government continues to have a strong presence in people's lives: it gives women $300 for each baby they have, doubling that sum for poor families; it fully funds state university educations; and it guarantees health care to all its 38 million citizens.
And while Poland's economic growth has certainly been impressive in recent years, this is partly the result of economic redistribution in the form of subsidies that have been flowing in from the European Union since it joined the bloc in 2004... SourceOh Mitt... just shut up, smile, and wave. I don't understand this. When Mitt tells the truth in the UK, he isn't being diplomatic. When he is diplomatic and kisses ass in public, he is attacked for his ass kissing not fitting with his purported ideology. The guy can't win, but that is politics.
I'm confused. He praises a country he should be against, that's all the article is saying. Where's the bias?
Edit: I'm not saying there isn't bias in the media, I'm so tired of the polarization of the media in order to attract viewers. I just wish we had a station like the old CNN.
|
On August 01 2012 08:03 Adila wrote:Show nested quote +Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney hailed Poland's economy Tuesday as something akin to a Republican dream: a place of small government, individual empowerment and free enterprise.
While it's true that Poland is one of Europe's fastest-growing economies and boasts dynamic entrepreneurs, Romney's depiction of Poland as a place of small government is debatable. Even 23 years after throwing off a communist command economy, the Polish government continues to have a strong presence in people's lives: it gives women $300 for each baby they have, doubling that sum for poor families; it fully funds state university educations; and it guarantees health care to all its 38 million citizens.
And while Poland's economic growth has certainly been impressive in recent years, this is partly the result of economic redistribution in the form of subsidies that have been flowing in from the European Union since it joined the bloc in 2004... SourceOh Mitt... just shut up, smile, and wave.
That article wasn't very good. Just because Poland has a slightly larger government than the US doesn't mean you can't praise them for their success. They used to be communists, now they are capitalists - other communist countries have had a much tougher time with the transition. That is worthy of praise, is it not?
Sounds like reporters are playing the game of "give us more news or we'll make up our own".
|
On August 01 2012 08:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 08:03 Adila wrote:Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney hailed Poland's economy Tuesday as something akin to a Republican dream: a place of small government, individual empowerment and free enterprise.
While it's true that Poland is one of Europe's fastest-growing economies and boasts dynamic entrepreneurs, Romney's depiction of Poland as a place of small government is debatable. Even 23 years after throwing off a communist command economy, the Polish government continues to have a strong presence in people's lives: it gives women $300 for each baby they have, doubling that sum for poor families; it fully funds state university educations; and it guarantees health care to all its 38 million citizens.
And while Poland's economic growth has certainly been impressive in recent years, this is partly the result of economic redistribution in the form of subsidies that have been flowing in from the European Union since it joined the bloc in 2004... SourceOh Mitt... just shut up, smile, and wave. That article wasn't very good. Just because Poland has a slightly larger government than the US doesn't mean you can't praise them for their success. They used to be communists, now they are capitalists - other communist countries have had a much tougher time with the transition. That is worthy of praise, is it not? Sounds like reporters are playing the game of "give us more news or we'll make up our own".
Oh, I see. Yeah, that's not very fair. You're saying that if it was Obama they'd be saying how awesome a diplomat he is, but since it's Romney they're calling him out instead. I agree 100%.
Edit: A more fair article would say Romney is showing his diplomatic abilities, but showing surprise that he is praising a country that has shown success using his opponent's big government policies.
|
On August 01 2012 08:33 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 08:05 Romantic wrote:On August 01 2012 08:03 Adila wrote:Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney hailed Poland's economy Tuesday as something akin to a Republican dream: a place of small government, individual empowerment and free enterprise.
While it's true that Poland is one of Europe's fastest-growing economies and boasts dynamic entrepreneurs, Romney's depiction of Poland as a place of small government is debatable. Even 23 years after throwing off a communist command economy, the Polish government continues to have a strong presence in people's lives: it gives women $300 for each baby they have, doubling that sum for poor families; it fully funds state university educations; and it guarantees health care to all its 38 million citizens.
And while Poland's economic growth has certainly been impressive in recent years, this is partly the result of economic redistribution in the form of subsidies that have been flowing in from the European Union since it joined the bloc in 2004... SourceOh Mitt... just shut up, smile, and wave. I don't understand this. When Mitt tells the truth in the UK, he isn't being diplomatic. When he is diplomatic and kisses ass in public, he is attacked for his ass kissing not fitting with his purported ideology. The guy can't win, but that is politics. I'm confused. He praises a country he should be against, that's all the article is saying. Where's the bias? Edit: I'm not saying there isn't bias in the media, I'm so tired of the polarization of the media in order to attract viewers. I just wish we had a station like the old CNN.
If you'd read the quote you'd see the poland thing is being taken out of context. He's praising them for shifting from communism to capitalism, not anarchism.
Romney's quote
"Rather than heeding the false promise of a government-dominated economy, Poland sought to stimulate innovation, attract investment, expand trade, and live within its means," Romney said in a speech in Warsaw. "Your success today is a reminder that the principles of free enterprise can propel an economy and transform a society."
edit: You can praise someone without fully agreeing with them and likewise you can criticize someone well still agreeing with them on other issues.
On August 01 2012 08:32 aksfjh wrote:I saw it Eris! Anyways, I'm surprised Mitt did so poorly on this recent trip. Certainly, the media is being incredibly nitpicky about some stuff, but he's a nominee for President. There are no free passes in this race.
I'd forgotten some people have trouble...maintaining well using. : /
|
When people stop calling it the liberal/conservative media and start calling it the corporate media, then we can start talking intelligently about media bias.
|
On August 01 2012 08:37 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 08:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 01 2012 08:03 Adila wrote:Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney hailed Poland's economy Tuesday as something akin to a Republican dream: a place of small government, individual empowerment and free enterprise.
While it's true that Poland is one of Europe's fastest-growing economies and boasts dynamic entrepreneurs, Romney's depiction of Poland as a place of small government is debatable. Even 23 years after throwing off a communist command economy, the Polish government continues to have a strong presence in people's lives: it gives women $300 for each baby they have, doubling that sum for poor families; it fully funds state university educations; and it guarantees health care to all its 38 million citizens.
And while Poland's economic growth has certainly been impressive in recent years, this is partly the result of economic redistribution in the form of subsidies that have been flowing in from the European Union since it joined the bloc in 2004... SourceOh Mitt... just shut up, smile, and wave. That article wasn't very good. Just because Poland has a slightly larger government than the US doesn't mean you can't praise them for their success. They used to be communists, now they are capitalists - other communist countries have had a much tougher time with the transition. That is worthy of praise, is it not? Sounds like reporters are playing the game of "give us more news or we'll make up our own". Oh, I see. Yeah, that's not very fair. You're saying that if it was Obama they'd be saying how awesome a diplomat he is, but since it's Romney they're calling him out instead. I agree 100%. Edit: A more fair article would say Romney is showing his diplomatic abilities, but showing surprise that he is praising a country that has shown success using his opponent's big government policies.
Where has Poland's success come from? It's big government policies or its reduction in big government policies?
Romney says it is from their reforms and their embrace of capitalism. "Fact checking" that as "wrong" is just being a political shill.
|
On August 01 2012 08:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 08:03 Adila wrote:Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney hailed Poland's economy Tuesday as something akin to a Republican dream: a place of small government, individual empowerment and free enterprise.
While it's true that Poland is one of Europe's fastest-growing economies and boasts dynamic entrepreneurs, Romney's depiction of Poland as a place of small government is debatable. Even 23 years after throwing off a communist command economy, the Polish government continues to have a strong presence in people's lives: it gives women $300 for each baby they have, doubling that sum for poor families; it fully funds state university educations; and it guarantees health care to all its 38 million citizens.
And while Poland's economic growth has certainly been impressive in recent years, this is partly the result of economic redistribution in the form of subsidies that have been flowing in from the European Union since it joined the bloc in 2004... SourceOh Mitt... just shut up, smile, and wave. That article wasn't very good. Just because Poland has a slightly larger government than the US doesn't mean you can't praise them for their success. They used to be communists, now they are capitalists - other communist countries have had a much tougher time with the transition. That is worthy of praise, is it not? Sounds like reporters are playing the game of "give us more news or we'll make up our own".
Ex-communist countries in Central Europe (Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, possibly Slovenia) all had reasonably similar success with the transition. Balkans and ex-Soviet countries had more trouble, but the reasons have not much to do with recent developments and more with historical circumstances.
Poland has slightly better budget discipline compared to Czechs and especially Hungarians. On the other hand their healthcare and a lot of other services provided by the government are much much worse than Czech one. So they are not some shining beacon of light among ex-communist countries.
|
On August 01 2012 08:17 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 08:00 ticklishmusic wrote:On August 01 2012 07:46 HellRoxYa wrote:On August 01 2012 07:41 ticklishmusic wrote:
Took the quiz, here's what I got:
Jill Stein 83%
Barack Obama 82%
Stewart Alexander 65%
Mitt Romney 51%
Ron Paul 41%
Agree with the first two, never heard of Stewart Alexander, so I guess shame on me? Romney is probably from the abortion/contraception question. I believe that if you can't afford birth control, you can't afford children and you shouldn't be having sex. Good things in life cost money, and that money should come from you.
No agreement with Ron Paul on major issues yet still 41%. Hmm. Still, its the internet where Ron Paul is already president of the Politically-Allied States of America. This is flawed thinking as abstinence doesn't work. If they can't afford birth control they'll have children they can't afford. They wont, however, not have sex. Yeah, I know abstinence doesn't work. My suggestion would be to start off with comprehensive sex ed for everyone. I said no to free contraception because I don't like the idea of my tax money going to pay for people having sex without having to face any financial or biological consequence. Given its a price issue, breaking the pharmaceutical industry's monopolistic pricing on pills would go a long way to making contraceptives affordable. Cheap contraception is okay, but free rubs me the wrong way. If a couple ends up with a child they can't afford despite being educated and having access to cheap contraception, then its clearly their fault at that point. The child could be given to some sort of government program which the parents would be obliged to pay for, or face some penalty. Either way, I want a system where people are educated and responsible for their actions. I don't think just giving out free contraceptives is the way. For some it is a price issue, while it's not for others. There are forms of birth control (generic alternatives) which are inexpensive, but seeing as how people don't all respond the exact same way to the same medication, there isn't a cheap solution for everybody. And the first course of action in the case that people have kids they can't take care of (or afford) would be to assist them through some sort of wage garnishing and voucher multiplication system, where they lose $X income, but get "kid stamps" worth more than the amount of income lost. If they still can't take care of the kid, we should use a more aggressive stance with CPS, with the primary goal of providing the kid with a good home (instead of keeping the family "together"). In no way should the primary goal of ANY system be to "punish" any actors for behaving recklessly. It can be on the road to reform or reparations, but "taking responsibility" isn't ever really about taking lashings.
However, a cheap solution should exist for the vast majority of people. While there is an oft cited statistic about how a small percentage of Americans account for a majority of healthcare costs, I do not think that would apply to birth control.
Yes, I think your solution is better than mine. Still, I have relatively little faith in people if despite education and cheap contraceptives still manage to screw up...
The only punishment I referred to was if the parents dodged responsibility, so I don't think your final point (which I agree with) is relevant. I'd advocate for something like parents being forced to join the army or some kind of public servic in case of dodging, but automatically docking a part of their wages to support their child. They would also be given job training opportunities.
|
As an european i liked some of Ron Paul ideas but since he's out i guess Obama will be fine,he has great ideas,too bad he had to deal with crysis tho,otherwise the US would have improve i believe.
|
On August 01 2012 08:31 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 08:29 RavenLoud wrote:On August 01 2012 07:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 01 2012 05:44 Derez wrote:On August 01 2012 05:18 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 05:13 HunterX11 wrote:On August 01 2012 04:36 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 02:20 DoubleReed wrote:
Well isn't he partly accurate? I mean when the Israelis came didn't they immediately begin irrigating building infrastructure for the future? Why didn't the palestinians do that similarly? You can definitely make arguments for culture. At least at first. Right, that's exactly the point. You can look at any two populations with significant economic differences, and you almost inevitably will see significant cultural differences that are largely, if not predominantly, responsible for those economic differences. It applies in Europe. It applies in the US. It also applies in Israel and Palestine. Granted, the circumstances surrounding Israel and Palestine obviously make for a special case, but there is still an argument to be made that the Palestinians bear significant responsibility for their current situation. Oh please, this is blatant racism and colonialist apologism. The truth's a bitch, ain't it? The apologists are the ones who won't hold people accountable for their failures. Cultural explanations are not taken very seriously in academic circles because there's no empirical evidence for them, even Weber's original formulation got disproven a few years back. In modern economic thinking, the much more relevant influence is the influence of economic circumstances on culture. To take use an obvious example: time is only relevant if you have somewhere to be at set hours, which is why watches are still uncommon in rural africa. Once a country starts developing economically, its culture automatically becomes more aligned with 'efficiency' or whatever term you want to use. The germans were once considered the laziest people in europe. The same went for americans, fins, irish, asians and pretty much every other nation that was once poor but is now rich. The reason the middle east is poorer than Israel is not because their culture impairs them, its because their own political structure and economic system do. Corruption, nepotism, state control over the most profitable sectors, you name it. Even in the 'tolerance' story, I'm not sure if tolerance creates economic succes or the economic succes creates tolerance. He makes that claim in the last sentence of his article, but offers no proof for the direction of the causal relation. I don't mean to say that there's no influence of culture on economics, but its minimal compared to the influence the other way around. Otherwise Germans, Americans, Japanese, Koreans, Taiwanese would still have to be lazy and be in dire economic situations. There's no way that culture isn't a factor. It may not be the main factor, but when it comes to economic development there is never just one main factor that overrides all others. Culture plays a huge role in creating the societal structures that underpin a society, which, absolutely matter. A specific example would be that in many Islamic countries it is illegal to pay interest. That has a huge impact on finance. Places like Dubai have recently worked around that with Sukuk bonds and they've been able to do quite a bit because of that. But it is a cultural choice - do you follow Islamic law strictly or not? - and with that choice comes economic consequences. Obviously everything is taken into consideration, I guess where people disagree with is which factor counts for more. I'd have to agree more with Derez, the political and economical system is definitely more important than just culture, I mean just look at North Korea vs. South Korea. Same people, same culture, same language, same history yet... I think many people are taking far too narrow of a view of culture. South Korea's culture (its values and way of life) is very different from North Korea's.
Well yes...today, after decades of living under extremely different systems. They were the same people less than a century ago.
Funny that 60 years ago, North Korea was actually the industrial powerhouse while the South was more akin to the backwater countryside. I wonder what happened? Maybe something to do with the political side of the things or the economic system...
|
i wish the US payed for my college, if my girl had a kid etc, that's the epitome of small government!
just what the US needs!
|
On August 01 2012 08:37 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 08:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 01 2012 08:03 Adila wrote:Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney hailed Poland's economy Tuesday as something akin to a Republican dream: a place of small government, individual empowerment and free enterprise.
While it's true that Poland is one of Europe's fastest-growing economies and boasts dynamic entrepreneurs, Romney's depiction of Poland as a place of small government is debatable. Even 23 years after throwing off a communist command economy, the Polish government continues to have a strong presence in people's lives: it gives women $300 for each baby they have, doubling that sum for poor families; it fully funds state university educations; and it guarantees health care to all its 38 million citizens.
And while Poland's economic growth has certainly been impressive in recent years, this is partly the result of economic redistribution in the form of subsidies that have been flowing in from the European Union since it joined the bloc in 2004... SourceOh Mitt... just shut up, smile, and wave. That article wasn't very good. Just because Poland has a slightly larger government than the US doesn't mean you can't praise them for their success. They used to be communists, now they are capitalists - other communist countries have had a much tougher time with the transition. That is worthy of praise, is it not? Sounds like reporters are playing the game of "give us more news or we'll make up our own". Oh, I see. Yeah, that's not very fair. You're saying that if it was Obama they'd be saying how awesome a diplomat he is, but since it's Romney they're calling him out instead. I agree 100%. Edit: A more fair article would say Romney is showing his diplomatic abilities, but showing surprise that he is praising a country that has shown success using his opponent's big government policies.
Really, Romney's comments were just a failure of understanding British 'manners', intensified by British media. Tabloids over there are merciless. Not only that, but as skeptical and cynical as English people are about England, they hate being criticized by outsiders.
Honestly, I'm not sure if Obama would have gotten away with that kind of criticism either ... but he is the President, with charisma, and comes of as congenial 90% of the time. Romney arrived in Britain as a candidate, but he's still just a retired rich guy. He has no track record in Britain whatsoever. So it's not surprising the Brits batted him around for funsies.
|
On August 01 2012 09:19 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 08:37 Risen wrote:On August 01 2012 08:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 01 2012 08:03 Adila wrote:Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney hailed Poland's economy Tuesday as something akin to a Republican dream: a place of small government, individual empowerment and free enterprise.
While it's true that Poland is one of Europe's fastest-growing economies and boasts dynamic entrepreneurs, Romney's depiction of Poland as a place of small government is debatable. Even 23 years after throwing off a communist command economy, the Polish government continues to have a strong presence in people's lives: it gives women $300 for each baby they have, doubling that sum for poor families; it fully funds state university educations; and it guarantees health care to all its 38 million citizens.
And while Poland's economic growth has certainly been impressive in recent years, this is partly the result of economic redistribution in the form of subsidies that have been flowing in from the European Union since it joined the bloc in 2004... SourceOh Mitt... just shut up, smile, and wave. That article wasn't very good. Just because Poland has a slightly larger government than the US doesn't mean you can't praise them for their success. They used to be communists, now they are capitalists - other communist countries have had a much tougher time with the transition. That is worthy of praise, is it not? Sounds like reporters are playing the game of "give us more news or we'll make up our own". Oh, I see. Yeah, that's not very fair. You're saying that if it was Obama they'd be saying how awesome a diplomat he is, but since it's Romney they're calling him out instead. I agree 100%. Edit: A more fair article would say Romney is showing his diplomatic abilities, but showing surprise that he is praising a country that has shown success using his opponent's big government policies. Really, Romney's comments were just a failure of understanding British 'manners', intensified by British media. Tabloids over there are merciless. Not only that, but as skeptical and cynical as English people are about England, they hate being criticized by outsiders. Honestly, I'm not sure if Obama would have gotten away with that kind of criticism either ... but he is the President, with charisma, and comes of as congenial 90% of the time. Romney arrived in Britain as a candidate, but he's still just a retired rich guy. He has no track record in Britain whatsoever. So it's not surprising the Brits batted him around for funsies.
He implied they weren't ready to host the Olympic Games. There are no manners about it. He just screwed up with good ol' plain English.
|
Let's put it this way:
Basically Mitt Romney was invited to a party* as a special guest. Or he invited himself. Either way, he was going to be introduced to all the fanciest people, eat the best food, and get the best seats in the house.
When someone asked him before he left for the party if the party was going to be any good, he said, "Well I don't know. Seems a little sketchy, but I guess I'll go anyways ... "
Of course that's a gaffe. Romney is so used to being rich he fucking forgot he was a guest. That's just a guy being a shitty guest and a stupid tourist.
*In this analogy, the party is not just the Olympics, it extends to the entire country.
|
On August 01 2012 08:50 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 08:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 01 2012 08:03 Adila wrote:Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney hailed Poland's economy Tuesday as something akin to a Republican dream: a place of small government, individual empowerment and free enterprise.
While it's true that Poland is one of Europe's fastest-growing economies and boasts dynamic entrepreneurs, Romney's depiction of Poland as a place of small government is debatable. Even 23 years after throwing off a communist command economy, the Polish government continues to have a strong presence in people's lives: it gives women $300 for each baby they have, doubling that sum for poor families; it fully funds state university educations; and it guarantees health care to all its 38 million citizens.
And while Poland's economic growth has certainly been impressive in recent years, this is partly the result of economic redistribution in the form of subsidies that have been flowing in from the European Union since it joined the bloc in 2004... SourceOh Mitt... just shut up, smile, and wave. That article wasn't very good. Just because Poland has a slightly larger government than the US doesn't mean you can't praise them for their success. They used to be communists, now they are capitalists - other communist countries have had a much tougher time with the transition. That is worthy of praise, is it not? Sounds like reporters are playing the game of "give us more news or we'll make up our own". Ex-communist countries in Central Europe (Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, possibly Slovenia) all had reasonably similar success with the transition. Balkans and ex-Soviet countries had more trouble, but the reasons have not much to do with recent developments and more with historical circumstances. Poland has slightly better budget discipline compared to Czechs and especially Hungarians. On the other hand their healthcare and a lot of other services provided by the government are much much worse than Czech one. So they are not some shining beacon of light among ex-communist countries.
That's pretty much the context Romney put it in. He was praising Poland's success since the end of communism.
The full text of his speech can be found here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
