|
On November 03 2010 07:16 misaTO wrote: Better to be poor in Sweden than in the US of A. Depends. It's better to be in the bottom 20% of Sweden than the bottom 20% of the US, but anything higher than that, it's better to be in the US.
http://i52.tinypic.com/2s9su3q.gif
|
On November 03 2010 07:12 Ferrose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 07:10 MacWorld wrote: The socialist welfare state of Sweden and other European countries have stomped all over our freedom. We live in misery and labour camps. Wish we were a bit more like the US. And the United States is headed for the same path.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm
|
On November 03 2010 07:20 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 07:16 misaTO wrote: Better to be poor in Sweden than in the US of A. Depends. It's better to be in the bottom 20% of Sweden than the bottom 20% of the US, but anything higher than that, it's better to be in the US. http://i52.tinypic.com/2s9su3q.gif
I do not care about who has more. I care the most about who doesn't have anything.
|
On November 03 2010 07:15 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 07:10 MacWorld wrote: The socialist welfare state of Sweden and other European countries have stomped all over our freedom. We live in misery and labour camps. Wish we were a bit more like the US. Marx is rolling in his grave for calling Sweden, home of such bourgeois companies like Volvo and Sony Ericsson, socialist. Volvo was just bought by the communists, and we have never owned Sony. I think that SonyEricsson is all bought out as well, but I'm not sure.
But since the word socialist not longer hold any meaning, it is pointless labelling Sweden as such.
|
Sigh, think Paul is going to win here in KY, fuck my life.
|
On November 03 2010 07:01 Romantic wrote:
I believe we operate under consumer co-op laws with non-capital stock since Federal law on the subject is terrible.
Amount paid is democratically decided as opposed to market value of the stock.
You can own it indirectly with a trust too, if you want (WINCO is a regional business that does this through the worker's retirement fund). Like I said, if you give every worker a share of every company, that's still private ownership, especially if you let them trade shares for other shares.
Also, I'm sure your co-op has the co-op version of directors and executives, because it's impractical to have every decision be put to a shareholder vote. So, in your ideal socialist society, who makes such important decisions such as which industry gets which workers, and the output of such industries? Surely it's beyond the expertise of the workers.
|
|
On November 03 2010 07:23 Fwmeh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 07:15 domovoi wrote:On November 03 2010 07:10 MacWorld wrote: The socialist welfare state of Sweden and other European countries have stomped all over our freedom. We live in misery and labour camps. Wish we were a bit more like the US. Marx is rolling in his grave for calling Sweden, home of such bourgeois companies like Volvo and Sony Ericsson, socialist. Volvo was just bought by the communists, and we have never owned Sony. I think that SonyEricsson is all bought out as well, but I'm not sure. But since the word socialist not longer hold any meaning, it is pointless labelling Sweden as such.
Neither does the word "liberal".
|
On November 03 2010 07:04 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 06:58 HadronCollid wrote:
I missed the point? If those Americans went back to the US they would be persecuted. Maybe for dodging the draft (which is a terrible policy and doesn't exist anymore). Americans are not persecuted for trying to move to Canada. The Canadians might not like it, but America isn't going to do anything about it except cooperate when Canada attempts to deport them. And are jailed if they return. And are shot at when attempting to escape.
There are other forms of persecution aside from legal. They may be ostracized by the community they live in, their friends, co-workers. The ones I know that have left have no plans of returning to their "home" to face such possibilities.
I never said the country was perfect. But remember that America has done some fucked up things as well to its own people. I don't think I need to list such things or I have a feeling I will be flamed by many more right wingers in here. And I just don't have time for that tonight.
In closing; Cuba may not be perfect, but it's not nearly as bad as you people are making it out to be. I have traveled there 9 times in the past 12 years. And while not everyone there I met agrees with the policies that are in place, many find it a wonderful place to live. Some do leave to follow the "American Dream" but in my opinion the ones that leave often end up worse off in America than they would have been if they stayed in Cuba. But hey, that's just an opinion, so don't read it as a factual statement.
|
On November 03 2010 07:22 misaTO wrote:
I do not care about who has more. I care the most about who doesn't have anything. Not sure why you care about either the American or Swedish poor then. Both of them are very well off compared to your average Chinese.
|
On November 03 2010 07:24 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 07:01 Romantic wrote:
I believe we operate under consumer co-op laws with non-capital stock since Federal law on the subject is terrible.
Amount paid is democratically decided as opposed to market value of the stock.
You can own it indirectly with a trust too, if you want (WINCO is a regional business that does this through the worker's retirement fund). Like I said, if you give every worker a share of every company, that's still private ownership, especially if you let them trade shares for other shares. Also, I'm sure your co-op has the co-op version of directors and executives, because it's impractical to have every decision be put to a shareholder vote. So, in your ideal socialist society, who makes such important decisions such as which industry gets which workers, and the output of such industries? Surely it's beyond the expertise of the workers.
I can answer this easily. In my country (it is not antigua/barbuda that was just a missclick, im an argentine), we have free universities/colleges and not everyone goes there. In a co-op you just hire qualified manager or (generally) a board of workers take the important decisions.
|
On November 03 2010 07:26 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 07:22 misaTO wrote:
I do not care about who has more. I care the most about who doesn't have anything. Not sure why you care about either the American or Swedish poor then. Both of them are very well off compared to your average Chinese.
I cannot name every poor person in the world. Nice rhetorical question though.
|
On November 03 2010 07:25 Ferrose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 07:22 clementdudu wrote:On November 03 2010 07:12 Ferrose wrote:On November 03 2010 07:10 MacWorld wrote: The socialist welfare state of Sweden and other European countries have stomped all over our freedom. We live in misery and labour camps. Wish we were a bit more like the US. And the United States is headed for the same path. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm I counter your sarcasm with...SARCASM http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sarcasm
i would counter your counter,but i dont want to stain the walls with bits of my brain :/
|
On November 03 2010 07:26 HadronCollid wrote:
There are other forms of persecution aside from legal. They may be ostracized by the community they live in, their friends, co-workers. The ones I know that have left have no plans of returning to their "home" to face such possibilities. ... That's not comparable at all to being jailed for simply attempting to emigrate. And it's a risk anyone migrating from any country faces.
I never said the country was perfect. But remember that America has done some fucked up things as well to its own people. I don't think I need to list such things or I have a feeling I will be flamed by many more right wingers in here. And I just don't have time for that tonight. Yes, America has done some fucked up things to its own people, but it's not at all comparable to Cuba. I advise you to go read a Human Rights report of the two nations if you somehow think it's at all similar.
In closing; Cuba may not be perfect, but it's not nearly as bad as you people are making it out to be. I have traveled there 9 times in the past 12 years. And while not everyone there I met agrees with the policies that are in place, many find it a wonderful place to live. Cuba is not the shitty hell-hole like other Socialist countries tend to end up, so they deserve credit for that. I agree, there are many countries I would prefer Cuba over. But let me reiterate my point: Cuba is the best Socialism can hope for. Why prefer that when capitalism has shown much more success.
Some do leave to follow the "American Dream" but in my opinion the ones that leave often end up worse off in America than they would have been if they stayed in Cuba. But hey, that's just an opinion, so don't read it as factual. Cuban-Americans are wealthier than Cubans, you need to update your opinion.
|
Although this socialism/communism debate is interesting, let's get this thread back on track and discuss the real matter at hand: the imminent teabagging of congressional liberals. Results will not roll in for a few more hours, but here is the AP's preliminary exit poll on what voters were concerned about at the polling booth:
Exit poll: Economic worries, criticism of Obama
The Associated Press
Voters' views of Tuesday's elections, according to an Associated Press analysis of preliminary exit poll results and pre-election polls.
___
THE ECONOMY OVERSHADOWS EVERYTHING
Over half of voters named the economy as the country's top problem, with no other issue coming close. Nearly all said the economy is in bad shape and expressed concern about its condition over the next year. Roughly 4 in 10 said their family's financial condition has worsened under President Barack Obama. About 6 in 10 say that overall, the country is heading on the wrong track.
___
THE PRESIDENT DRAWS FROWNS ...
Just over half disapprove of how Obama is handling his job, and similar numbers expect his policies to hurt the country. More than 1 in 3 voters considered their vote Tuesday to be an expression of opposition to Obama; fewer said their vote was meant to voice support for the president.
___
... AND CONGRESS DOES EVEN WORSE
Only 1 in 4 expressed approval of how Congress is doing its job, including about half voicing strong disapproval. Over half also voice negative views of the Democratic and Republican parties.
___
IT'S A TEA PARTY
Roughly 4 in 10 voters consider themselves supporters of the conservative tea party. About 1 in 4 voters consider their vote a message of support for the tea party and nearly as many said their vote was meant to signal opposition — but most said the tea party wasn't a factor. Tea party supporters were nearly all extremely negative about Obama and his policies.
___
TARGET: GOVERNMENT
About 3 in 4 voters expressed negative views about how the federal government is working, including about 1 in 4 saying they are just plain angry. Less than half want the government to do more to solve problems, while over half say the government should let businesses and individuals handle more things on their own.
___
THE ISSUES THAT AWAIT
Given three choices, about 4 in 10 want Congress to focus on reducing the federal deficit while nearly as many prefer spending to create jobs. Tax cuts finished last. Only about 4 in 10 want to continue all of the broad tax cuts that were approved under President George W. Bush, including reductions for people earning at least $250,000 annually. Most of those remaining want to let the cuts expire for the wealthiest earners, while a small number want to let them all expire. Close to half want to repeal the health care overhaul Obama enacted this year, while about the same number want to expand it even further or leave it in place.
___
The preliminary results are from a survey that Edison Research conducted for The Associated Press and television networks with 11,126 voters nationwide. This included interviews with 9,525 voters Tuesday in a random sample of 268 precincts nationally. In addition, landline and cellular telephone interviews were conducted Oct. 22 to 31 with 1,601 people who voted early or absentee. There is a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 1 percentage point for the entire sample, higher for subgroups.
Source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2010/Nov/02/exit_poll__economic_worries__criticism_of_obama.html
|
On November 03 2010 07:28 misaTO wrote:
I can answer this easily. In my country (it is not antigua/barbuda that was just a missclick, im an argentine), we have free universities/colleges and not everyone goes there. In a co-op you just hire qualified manager or (generally) a board of workers take the important decisions. The question is supposed to be easy. But you're basically advocating the creation of a highly central bureaucracy if we tried to apply this to the management of an industrialized nation.
Moreover, how do you attract the most-qualified manager if you're forbidden from paying them a higher salary, or from paying them at all?
|
On November 03 2010 07:22 misaTO wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 07:20 domovoi wrote:On November 03 2010 07:16 misaTO wrote: Better to be poor in Sweden than in the US of A. Depends. It's better to be in the bottom 20% of Sweden than the bottom 20% of the US, but anything higher than that, it's better to be in the US. http://i52.tinypic.com/2s9su3q.gif I do not care about who has more. I care the most about who doesn't have anything.
Refer to my sig
|
On November 03 2010 07:35 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 07:28 misaTO wrote:
I can answer this easily. In my country (it is not antigua/barbuda that was just a missclick, im an argentine), we have free universities/colleges and not everyone goes there. In a co-op you just hire qualified manager or (generally) a board of workers take the important decisions. The question is supposed to be easy. But you're basically advocating the creation of a highly central bureaucracy if we tried to apply this to the management of an industrialized nation. Moreover, how do you attract the most-qualified manager if you're forbidden from paying them a higher salary, or from paying them at all?
All industrialized states are run by bureaucracy . It's necesary for any modern Democracy to work, which of course include the USA. Don't you have a DMV ? Well, those are burocrats. The FDA? Also burocrats. Burocrats, burocrats EVERYWHERE.
|
Cuban-Americans are wealthier than Cubans, you need to update your opinion.
Monetarily yes they have more money working as Gardeners. What they miss out on: Free university, Health-care, 100% organic food (cuba has the best crop-rotation system in the world).
So you're right in stating that they (Cuban Emigrants) have more money yes. But are they "Wealthier" I Disagree.
Wealth can mean a lot of things.
|
On November 03 2010 07:39 misaTO wrote:All industrialized states are run by bureaucracy . It's necesary any modern Democracy to work, which of course include the USA. Don't you have a DMV ? Well, those are burocrats. The FDA? Also burocrats. Burocrats, burocrats EVERYWHERE. I think you missed the part where Romantic believed a Socialist country doesn't require a centralized government.
|
|
|
|