Is Peace profitable? Is sickness prevention profitable?

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Gandar: Touche' ! But I think alot of this stems from the fact that Yoric is so damn critical of the U.S. in practically every one of his posts, and the fact that he seems to think the answer to all of the worlds problems is government control and entitlements.

What a bizzarre statement. So you've read all 5000 posts have you? Perhaps you'd better do a search. You'll find I was fiercly defending the USA and criticising anti-Americanism post sept 11.

Being anti-gun is not being anti-US.

If you do a post search you'll also draw the conclusion that my solution to the worlds problems are found in the grace of Jesus Christ, not governmental control.

I suggest you get your facts stright rather than make generalised statements of misinformation.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Lord of Alcohol: I agree completely with everyone

LOL!

[Moiraine]

Originally posted by Gandar: As far as the debate about U.s. military funding possibly allowing other countries to fund domestic programs, this was just one example of many things the U.S. provides for its allies. Another example would be that the U.S. foots 75% of the bill for everything the U.N. does world-wide. And in case nobody has noticed, almost everything the U.N. gets involved in mainly benefits countries other than the U.S. And regardless of the countries size, thier vote carries just as much weight as the U.S. vote. So it really isn't as silly as you think. Sad, yes. Silly, no.

Gandar, you are wrong about U.N. funding. The part of the contribution of the U.S. to the U.N. is currently 22% of the regular budget, and 27% of the peace budget. And since the U.N. budget ratios are based on the economical capacities of the member countries, the U.S. are no more taxed per capita than the other U.N. countries. France's contribution, for example, contributes for 6,5% of the regular U.N. budget for 60 millions people, and if you compare that rate to the 22% contributed by the U.S. for 300 million people, we are more taxed per capita than you are. And we still can afford health care for everyone. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Barry the Sprout]

Just one small point for MagiK, mostly connected with his critiscm of what he calls: "Socialism". Well, I've studied left wing politics for a number of years and I don't think I've ever heard of this type of Socialism that you say we all support and you can beat so easily in argument.

You say that Socialism means that currency has to be abolished. Thats actually wrong. No ifs, no buts, sorry MagiK but that is completely and totally incorrect as far as Socialist theory goes. Currency originally existed to allow ease of exchange. Imagine if you were a pig farmer who wanted to take a train journey... the improvement currency makes to our lives are apparent when you think of yourself wandering around the country trying to find a train driver who wants a pig in exchange. You are right, its ludicrous. You have to have a currency.

What Socialism objects to is the use of that currency as a commodity in itself. A currency was originally a method of expressing other commodities in a unified manner, now it has actually become a commodity itself, leading to alienation of labour, lengthening of surplus labour time, and general nasty things of that nature. So Socialists want to see currency return to its original form as a representation, but certainly do not want to see it abolished.

My other point is towards Attalus. Does what the UK government spend on healthcare really depend on what the US spends on its armed forces? Alright, so we don't spend as much as you, but I hardly think that that is because we rest on the US's power. We spend less because the US is an anomaly amongst world governments in terms of how much it spends. Now... who is spending the right amount is a different question entirely...

The amount of money the UK government spends is dependant on the amount of money the UK government taxes off of its citizens. At present it isn't very much and the NHS is going downhill. But it used to be more. The NHS used to be a world class health service, and for the most part it did so when our army was so grotesquely large we still maintained national service. Which kind of puts the issue of relative military and health spending in perspective I think.

[Moiraine]

Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by Ar-Cunin: In Denmark we have free social and medical care (and free schools - something I've reaped the benefits of) - the cost is that we pay 50-60% taxes. But it is only a tiny minorety that would abolish the 'velfare state'. People see the benefits of a social network (incl. hospitals).

thats all fine and dandy, and Im sure Denmark is a fine place, but your whole country is only roughly twice the size of one of our smaller states (Massechustes) and your entire population is about that of the Baltimore/Washington corridor here in the states. Add to that that we are not a monarchy, and that our nation was founded on the idea of minimal taxation and limited governmental power, You are comparing apples and oranges.

Oh and our public school system is as free as yours (ie. it isnt really free, you pay for it with taxes)[/QUOTE]Seems to me Ar-Cunin is comparing apples with ... more apples. Why exactly could a system that works on 5 million people not work on 300 million ? And what has monarchy to do with it ? It's up to you U.S. people to change your own system if you feel some of its drawbacks are unacceptable.

[Donut]

Originally posted by Attalus: quote: Originally posted by Donut: quote: Originally posted by Attalus: ]Actually, the only way that Britain and the other countries that have socialized medicine can afford it is that the USA has to maintain the only decent armed forces that maintain order, keep the sea lanes open, etc. We simply cannot afford socialized medicine. Nice for those of you that do.

Keeping the sea lanes open? Who tried to close them?[/QUOTE]Er, most recently, Adolf Hitler. And one of the first tasks that the Russian attack sub force was, in the event of a general non nuclear war was to cut off Englands trade. You do realize, as a Brit, that y'all have to import food to survive? [/QUOTE]I think you'll find it was the Royal Navy that kept those sea-lanes open at the time.

And we'd be well able to do it again if we needed to. Unless the US decided to shut them of course.

The USA maintains their large military to protect their political and economic interest throughout the world (and there's nothing wrong with that). But they could certainly afford social health care if they wanted to. It's a lifesyle choice that the US people have decided against.

[ 10-28-2002, 08:49 AM: Message edited by: Donut ]

[Donut]

Originally posted by MagiK: Add to that that we are not a monarchy, and that our nation was founded on the idea of minimal taxation and limited governmental power, You are comparing apples and oranges.

Why does the fact that Denmark is a monarchy matter?

[Donut]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Look, guys, a lot of intelligent things are said on these boards, but I don't think you can support the notion that health care in England is paid for by military cuts dependent on American military might. There are at least TWO nearly-impossible cause-and-effect connections to make in this assertion (English health care budget to English military budget, and military budget cut in England to military speding in America). It was either said in haste and as hyperbole, which is understandable, or in ignorance, which is also understandable. But it is completely untennable. England largely supports health care programs with a 17% sales tax, from what I understand BTW. Or, that is in theory. Like in the US, often taxes are just collected and aggregated and then spent, without a particular notion of "this penny I'm giving the government right now will go to X, Y, and Z."

Thank you Timber. I wasn't sure if Attalus was speaking tongue in cheek here.

[Timber Loftis]

Well, I think LoA is the brightest guy on the board, as he's the only one who's smart enough to play both.... I mean all... sides of the field on this. Plus, he brings the booze, which nary an intellectual discussion was ever made worse by.

Regarding the military expendiatures of the US, thanks to Donut for pointing out politely that the US political and economic interests fuel this spending. To put it more bluntly, I'll say that the US is the most power & control freakish of any nation, for good or ill. That's why it has dozens of bases in other countries, an astronomical military budget, stealth technology, and other such military perks that other nations don't. Yes, the downside is that the US often faces a damned-if-it-does/ damned-if-it-doesn't problem as the rest of the world looks at it to be both a worldwide police force and a scapegoat.

And, regarding Gandar and Morianne's disagreement about the facts and figures behind US spending for the UN and otherwise, it doesn't really matter whose facts are right for a point to be made here. The first world provides welfare spending to the poorer countries, in large sums. The UN, WTO, IMF, World Bank, and hundreds of small or large international welfare programs exist in first world countries. The reasons for this are as many and varied as the people spending the money. Spending money in a nation gives you some form of control there. Investments can cause a return on your money in the long run. Spending money gives you allies. "Helping others, and doing *good* things," adds Nalia. But, perhaps most importantly, throwing money at the rabble helps placate them while you continue to pillage their land and future. So, this worldwide spending is in the pecuniary interest in the US's interests.

[ 10-28-2002, 08:57 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Spelca]

Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by Moiraine: Paying attention to what people REALLY say is basic courtesy.

very good backhanded insult after an apology [img]smile.gif[/img] good form there.

"Oh, and MagiK, we had to wait for a socialist government"

This is exactly what you said. You said you had a socialist government, which is not true. You have a Republic with a socialist PARTY that is or was in power. Before you got nasty there I was giving you the benefit of the doubt since English may not be your first language so I didn't want to pick on your phraseology. But since you made such a big stink about it.... I interpreted your words in an acceptable way and retract my apology. I will beg your pardon instead, for attempting to be gracious.[/QUOTE]Right, er, I don't know if this discussion already ended... It was all very confusing at the end. But, anyway, I don't see how her phraseology is bad or anything. As far as I know 'government' can mean a type of a system (republic, monarchy), but it also means the ministers... So a country can be a republic and have a socialist government. Which means the ministers come from the socialist party or whatever, because they have the majority. Like Sweden is a monarchy, and they have a social-democratic government, because the ministers are from the social-democratic party. At least that's how I understand it. Or I might be wrong. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Here's the dictionary:
government, abbreviation govt (noun)
- The government is the group of people who control a country.
- Government can also be used to mean all the departments which operate the decisions made by the group of people who control the country.
- Government is also the system used for controlling a country, city, or group of people.
- Government can also mean the activities involved in controlling a country, city, group of people, etc..

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/defi...key=govern*1+0
That's from the Cambridge Dictionary online. Though I left out the examples of sentences. [img]smile.gif[/img]