Soros China has better gov than US.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Nov 27, 2010 12:48 pm

Accountable;1345102 wrote: Liberty. Worth every penny.

eta:

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.

Thomas Jefferson

I'll see your jefferson and raise you one Aneurin Bevan:sneaky:

either poverty will use democracy to win the struggle against property, or property, in fear of poverty, will destroy democracy"

discontent arises from the knowledge of the possible, as contrasted with the actual"

It seems to me your electoral system is set up so a populist candidate has little chance of success. Correct me if I'm wrong but I' sure I read somewhere it was the case that if the democratic party had not changed to a proportional representation system for selecting the candidate the nomination would have gone to hilary clinton? It's not the presidential candidate with the most votes nationwide that wins but the one that controls the electoral colleges. Your tea party movement seems to be used by the ruling elites to counteract a grass roots demand for change - although michael moore might not be the best source of information.

Bear in mind I'm not an american I'm after your perspective on it. It just seems bizarre you would rather spend your money on filling the coffers of private companies that can decide not to give you medical care on a whim than spend the same amount ensuring everyone had medical care whenever and whoever they were.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Nov 27, 2010 12:56 pm

Accountable;1345102 wrote: Liberty. Worth every penny.

eta:

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.

Thomas Jefferson Jefferson had not an inkling of the consequences which are a result of unbridled pursuits if industry, in fact, I doubt he'd use the word "improvement" in that sentence today if he would be one to acknowledge climate change, water and air pollution, over population and an economic result that leaves 20 percent of the population with 85 percent of the wealth [1]. And, if he were that kind of person, I doubt you'd be quoting him.

IOW, why not just quote someone more current like Newt Gingrich or George Bush?

[1] http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesameri ... ealth.html

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Nov 27, 2010 5:27 pm

gmc;1345157 wrote: It seems to me your electoral system is set up so a populist candidate has little chance of success. Correct me if I'm wrong but I' sure I read somewhere it was the case that if the democratic party had not changed to a proportional representation system for selecting the candidate the nomination would have gone to hilary clinton? It's not the presidential candidate with the most votes nationwide that wins but the one that controls the electoral colleges. Your tea party movement seems to be used by the ruling elites to counteract a grass roots demand for change - although michael moore might not be the best source of information. You're right about the system as it stands now being against a populist because the two controlling parties work together to wipe out any competition. They do that through typical dirty politics of lying, overblowing scandals, ostracising & ridiculing, etc. But they also do it through setting up rules to getting on the ballot that it's damn near impossible without compromising and joining one of the parties. Your idea of the electoral college thing is flawed, but it would take a bit too long to explain.

gmc;1345157 wrote: Bear in mind I'm not an american I'm after your perspective on it. It just seems bizarre you would rather spend your money on filling the coffers of private companies that can decide not to give you medical care on a whim than spend the same amount ensuring everyone had medical care whenever and whoever they were.To me it's a question of liberty. Hiring someone to provide a service leaves me in charge I can continue the contract or drop it and go to someone else. I have that liberty. Asking/demanding the government to provide a service is not like that at all. Once the government takes over it makes the decisions. If the contractor makes a change I disagree with I can refuse to carry the relationship further; I can look elsewhere. If the government makes a change I can bitch, I can cast my one vote among millions, but in reality I'm stuck with what I'm given. If I break away to find my own way, I'm in a pool of much smaller demand because of the government interference in the competitive market, so the same services will presumably be far more expensive than they would have been otherwise. ... and I can't look to a rival government. Government is a monopoly.

When you ask government to provide a service you give government control over that service. You give up your right of veto and virtually all decisionmaking power, and you can't get it back. You become dependent upon the government to make those decisions for the rest of you life. Your liberty in this area is gone.

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Sat Nov 27, 2010 7:27 pm

Accountable;1344300 wrote: "Government is not the solution to the problem. Government is the problem."

Ronald Reagan

I Second that EMOTION!!!

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Sat Nov 27, 2010 7:35 pm

Weird that Soros proped this guy up (Obama) and now he is pissin down his leg.....IMHO

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Sat Nov 27, 2010 7:51 pm

yaaarrrgg;1344434 wrote:

It's a big reason why I think China and the U.S. are converging towards the same type of government via different routes. China is probably surpassing the U.S. in the process though. They are currently implementing universal health care, where as the U.S. is floundering in debt. If we are more free than China, and our "system" is so good, then why are we borrowing so much money from them and dependent on them for what seems like almost everything we use?

WOW...........Ya think China can implement health care to 1,331,460,000, (Thats a BILLION + I mind you) and not go broke? Don't hold your breath. In China the upper eschalon WILL get health care but the pee-ons will suffer.......IMHO

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Sat Nov 27, 2010 7:59 pm

Ahso!;1344456 wrote: America should drop the patriotism.
Why...........?

I'm serious...........Why in the heck should I not be a patriot? I believe in our founding fathers and their principals that give you and me the right to debate.........UNLIKE CHINA!!!!!

Try stating your hatred for the GOV. in China like you do here and see how quick you get escorted to the calaboosse!!!.

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Sat Nov 27, 2010 8:09 pm

Scrat;1344622 wrote: That's a tough one. I'd have to say we need only one principle, one guiding factor. The maintenance of a system of government which works for the good of the country and all of its people. Nothing else.

I think this would be more confusing and problematic than anything else with our current system, we simply aren't authoritarian enough. Every seller of snake oil and brimstone adds their voice to this fugue which is our brand of politics.

This is where I think Chinas government is better than ours. Chinas government gets things done, they built the 3 Gorges dam they're working on huge projects such as a high speed rail system the likes of which the world cannot match. The government there recognizes the need to bring their population out of poverty, they see it as a race to the top whereas in America it's simply a race to the bottom. American politicians don't care if our standard of living is falling, all they care about is getting the funding to win their next election.

America is being killed by the individualistic, narcissistic, self serving attitude present from one end of the society to the other. A group of individuals will never defeat a group that works together as one.

I would LOVE to see Chinas Constitution.............Ya think it is as good as ours?.....................Just askin

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Sat Nov 27, 2010 8:15 pm

Accountable;1345010 wrote: Rather than adding on the cost of my private medical care, subtract your government's budget for providing your medical care. How does the balance come out? I'm not implying anything, just curious. I mean, the result would be just as pointless. I don't understand why you take offense at being called dependent when you take pride in all your government services.

You & we are different. The role our governments play in our lives is different. Why is that so irritating to you? I want less service from my federal government. I want my federal government to protect my liberty to do as I will within the limits of society ... and nothing more. You want more out of your government, I get that. Why are you so offended that I don't want the same?

Great reply Accountable, You hit the duck right on the head!!! Thanks

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Nov 27, 2010 9:58 pm

Thanks, bud. Long time no see!

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Nov 27, 2010 10:18 pm

BTS;1345184 wrote: Why...........?

I'm serious...........Why in the heck should I not be a patriot? I believe in our founding fathers and their principals that give you and me the right to debate.........UNLIKE CHINA!!!!!

Try stating your hatred for the GOV. in China like you do here and see how quick you get escorted to the calaboosse!!!.Ahso!;1344466 wrote:

Patriotism imprisons us in paranoia, aggressiveness, combativeness, unreasonable postures and apparently causes people to misinterpret what others post on forums. You can support the constitution and respect the people who began this venture without the patriotic nationalism. However, I'd be more than happy to back away from that view if the patriotism Americans practiced was defined without what I mentioned above. Too many of us have too much prideful arrogance, IMO.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Nov 29, 2010 3:10 am

posted by accountable

Your idea of the electoral college thing is flawed, but it would take a bit too long to explain.

Thought it might, it's years since i looked at the american constitution.

posted by accountable

When you ask government to provide a service you give government control over that service. You give up your right of veto and virtually all decisionmaking power, and you can't get it back. You become dependent upon the government to make those decisions for the rest of you life. Your liberty in this area is gone.

No you don't you can elect a different government if you are not happy.

posted by accountable

You & we are different. The role our governments play in our lives is different. Why is that so irritating to you? I want less service from my federal government. I want my federal government to protect my liberty to do as I will within the limits of society ... and nothing more. You want more out of your government, I get that. Why are you so offended that I don't want the same?

not offended , just curious, and trying to understand, it's such a bizarre way of looking at things and it's no fun discussing thongs with people unless you disagree to some extent. I'm wonderful, you're wonderful - see! bet you're bored already.

Perhaps it's because governments in europe had to get involved post ww2 in rebuilding society for the simple reason there was no one else could do it. You were talking about, cities demolished completely, millions homeless, and populations with a sense of we didn't go through all that for things to go back to the way they were before. There was a very real sense of struggle between left and right and the left wing of liberalism won the war. America has a disadvantage in that your right wing fascists just morphed in to something else it wasn't wiped out and thoroughly discredited like it was in europe. Even the only fascist country that survived, spain, has now embraced liberal democracy. Our constitutions and systems of government have been shaped by warfare and revolt from below. Taking from the rich to distribute to the poorer is second nature because we don't feel they have any entitlement to take any more than a fair share since wealth is built on the exploitation of others, you need capital to build a factory but those who work in it and generate more wealth want a share of the profits, take too much and they get pissed, eventually.

I think in China you will see an increasingly vocal and if need be violent demand for change from the educated urban masses, just as you saw in europe as it industrialised.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Nov 29, 2010 4:21 am

gmc;1345377 wrote: [QUOTE=Accountable;1345177]When you ask government to provide a service you give government control over that service. You give up your right of veto and virtually all decision-making power, and you can't get it back. You become dependent upon the government to make those decisions for the rest of you life. Your liberty in this area is gone.No you don't you can elect a different government if you are not happy.
Not alone, you can't. you give up your right of veto. Any change you want to initiate (that your insurer is not agreeable to) has to be agreed to and coordinated with literally millions if that change is going to take place. Likewise with getting a different government. You have one vote to decide about one representative. You alone can't change the government.

If you were in charge of your own healthcare, you alone would decide who, if anyone, to insure with. If you were not happy with your insurer, you alone would decide what action to take, be it complaining to your current insurer, going with a new one, or choosing none at all. And yes, I am aware that I am oversimplifying, but my point is that one person alone is powerless when the government provides a service. The government makes all of the decisions and you are dependent upon them.

gmc;1345377 wrote: America has a disadvantage in that your right wing fascists just morphed in to something else it wasn't wiped out and thoroughly discredited like it was in europe.Right, they morphed into our left wing. Woodrow Wilson is worshipped in the history books as the Father of Progressivism.

gmc;1345377 wrote: Our constitutions and systems of government have been shaped by warfare and revolt from below. Taking from the rich to distribute to the poorer is second nature because we don't feel they have any entitlement to take any more than a fair share since wealth is built on the exploitation of others, you need capital to build a factory but those who work in it and generate more wealth want a share of the profits, take too much and they get pissed, eventually.I think the more fundamental difference is that your revolts involve telling the government what they should do for the people when the government isn't doing it now. Our revolt involved telling the government to get out of the way and let the people handle things. Wealth redistribution in our industrialized areas involved employees rising up against the employers, forming unions, and those unions negotiating with the employers about how the wealth would be redistributed. Where it went horribly wrong is when, once unions neared parity, they started trying to influence gov't to force those outside their individual spheres of influence to their own will, like it or not. The employers did the same, and having more money with which to buy that influence, put us in the situation we're in today.

Your society is yours and welcome to it. I want to extract both union and corporate influence from the government. Decentralized power is the way to go over here. I don't want any services from the federal gov't that can be done otherwise.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Nov 29, 2010 5:08 am

posted by accountable

If you were in charge of your own healthcare, you alone would decide who, if anyone, to insure with. If you were not happy with your insurer, you alone would decide what action to take, be it complaining to your current insurer, going with a new one, or choosing none at all. And yes, I am aware that I am oversimplifying, but my point is that one person alone is powerless when the government provides a service. The government makes all of the decisions and you are dependent upon them.

I am in charge, The government is a means to provide the healthcare the actual decisions are left to the healthcare professionals - although we do have a problem thanks to a labour government that tried to micromanage everything and a previous conservative government that dislikes the idea but is terrified to touch the health service too much knowing it would cost them the election. They tried partial privatisation of things like cleaning services and as a result we have epidemics caused by poor hygiene and daft ideas like getting private finance initiatives getting companies to build hospitals and leae them back and as a result we are paying over the odds for hospital building projects we will never own - but these are specific issues here.

If I'm not happy I can go to a different doctor or ask for a second opinion. I am entitled to treatment and I don't have to worry about being unable to afford it. If I want i can get private treatment, it's not worth the extra cost. It's an attitudinal thing - my father in law had his heart bypass operation delayed three times due to more pressing emergencies getting in the way. He could afford to go privately but did not so so as he considers it immoral that anyone should be able to jump the queue because they are richer than another in the line. I know many who think like that myself included. You have an unjust system where the rich get taken care of and tough **** for the rest.

I am not dependent on anybody, you are dependant on a private insurance company not depriving you of medical care at a point when they know you are not in a position to do anything about it.

posted by accountable

I think the more fundamental difference is that your revolts involve telling the government what they should do for the people when the government isn't doing it now. Our revolt involved telling the government to get out of the way and let the people handle things. Wealth redistribution in our industrialized areas involved employees rising up against the employers, forming unions, and those unions negotiating with the employers about how the wealth would be redistributed. Where it went horribly wrong is when, once unions neared parity, they started trying to influence gov't to force those outside their individual spheres of influence to their own will, like it or not. The employers did the same, and having more money with which to buy that influence, put us in the situation we're in today.

That's a good way of explaining it. It's an attitudinal difference I think due to historical experience that is deep in our psyche.

The employers did the same, and having more money with which to buy that influence, put us in the situation we're in today.

Which is fascism or corporatism where you have government run for the benefit of an elite, corporations and government hand in hand to run things for their own benefit. It's the very antithesis of liberal capitalism as almost invariable power gets concentrated in to a few hands rather than the many. Always suspected you were a closet liberal ( in the classical sense) anyone who thinks the principles of the american constitution are a good idea is one. The argument is which of the people bet to dcide things.

Right, they morphed into our left wing. Woodrow Wilson is worshipped in the history books as the Father of Progressivism.

I would have thought in to your right wing of the republican party and the christian fundamentalists are a part of it. The MacCarthy era was quite Blantyre anti-semitic and anti-left wing. David duke (somebody posted one of his videos ) comes out with anti-semitic nonsense straight out of a nazi propaganda sheet.

On the other hand I am not familiar enough with American politics to argue my case without a lot more research I don't have time to indulge in. I spout opinions regardless however. Seems to me you don't actually have a left wing in American politics any more.

Your society is yours and welcome to it. I want to extract both union and corporate influence from the government. Decentralized power is the way to go over here. I don't want any services from the federal gov't that can be done otherwise.

Don't worry you can keep yours as well! (no smilies for some reason) I have no intentions of ever living there. Must go, the NHS dentist awaits.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Mon Nov 29, 2010 4:47 pm

Od course China has the ability to run their own people down with tanks and kill them if they object to their method of government.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Nov 29, 2010 7:14 pm

gmc;1345381 wrote: Always suspected you were a closet liberal ( in the classical sense) anyone who thinks the principles of the american constitution are a good idea is one. The argument is which of the people bet to dcide things. :wah: Thanks. That's as good an example as any as to the uselessness of labels.

gmc wrote: I would have thought in to your right wing of the republican party and the christian fundamentalists are a part of it. The MacCarthy era was quite Blantyre anti-semitic and anti-left wing. David duke (somebody posted one of his videos ) comes out with anti-semitic nonsense straight out of a nazi propaganda sheet. David Duke started his political career on the Democrat ticket, and had quit the KKK long before switching to Repub. He only won an election as a Democrat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Duke ... _Klux_Klan

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Nov 30, 2010 12:29 am

Saint_;1345440 wrote: Od course China has the ability to run their own people down with tanks and kill them if they object to their method of government.

America doesn't exactly have a stellar record when it comes human rights and not opening fire on it's own citizens, not to mention locking people up without trial. You've never really had the moral high ground just the delusion that you did. If you want to claim the moral high ground you actually need to stay on it. It's not what you say it's what you do that people notice.

posted by accountable

David Duke started his political career on the Democrat ticket, and had quit the KKK long before switching to Repub. He only won an election as a Democrat

Outside of the states he is a complete and utter non-entity. All politics is a circle, when you get far left and far right they meet and you have a bunch of crooks and liars that shouldn't be allowed to be in charge of anything never mind a nation. Best to have the two sides squared off against each other where the excesses of one can be counterbalanced by the other. Too far either way ends up in misery. Well that's my opinion for what it's worth. You can never agree with each other all the time but when one side becomes of the political spectrum gets too powerful you need to swing it back somehow.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Nov 30, 2010 3:50 am

gmc;1345470 wrote: Outside of the states he is a complete and utter non-entity.Inside the States he's a Trivial Pursuit question. .................. Okay, I'm only guessing at that; I haven't played Trivial Pursuit in probably 20 years.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Nov 30, 2010 1:24 pm

Accountable;1345484 wrote: Inside the States he's a Trivial Pursuit question. .................. Okay, I'm only guessing at that; I haven't played Trivial Pursuit in probably 20 years.

Someone on the forum posted one of his videos, looks like he's been reading the elders of zion or something. You would think that kind of thinking died out with hitler.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Dec 01, 2010 3:32 am

Yeh, well ... don't forget that Youtube doesn't charge much.