I see no reason why you should expect to be taken any more seriously pushing your brand of `real socialism'
Proof by example, from Scandinavia over the past century. It's not my brand, after all, I just pointed to the place with the lowest infant mortality and longest lifespans.
As for your specific questions:
You still have not answered these:
1. Do you give more credence to the direct quotes of Jesus than you do to the rest of the Bible? You only told me what you thought of my interpretation of the verses I quoted.
3. Do you agree that socialism and capitalism are not mutually exclusive? I'm still waiting to read how you classify Scandinavia.
4. Do you agree that the U.S. has been socialist since the imposition of the income tax? Looking back on your posts, you didn't exactly disagree with me when I called the U.S. entitlements socialist, but, again, I wonder how you use the term. It would be helpful if you would let me understand what you mean by the word. I'm more than willing to sync up to your terminology.
5. Is abortion a more important issue to you than poverty? Again, you never even touched on this after having been asked directly three times. Why?
Jesus... told us to render unto Caesar only that which was Caesar's
You can accuse me of quoting out of context all you want (I provided several verses of context.) And, of course reasonable people will often have different interpretations. But I am not putting words in Jesus's mouth to further my rhetoric! The word "only" doesn't appear in any translation of that quotation. It does, however, appear quite frequently in paraphrases by people who are jumping through hoops to minimize their taxes.
Jesus... regularly used military analogies in his preaching, and...
So, you find the "military anaologies" more to your liking than the direct admonition to turn the other cheek? Indeed, the Quakers are in the minority on this point, which speaks volumes about the state of Christianity today.
... personally drove the money changers from the temple with a whip of cords
I can tell you weren't raised on a ranch. Ask any cowboy whether a whip is for cracking or cutting.
job creation and economic growth are what solve poverty
I agree that job creation helps, which is one of the primary reasons I oppose President Bush and the Republican Party.
no one in the United States today is `poor' in any historically or internationally meaningful sense of the word at all.
Absurd! 3.5% of U.S. households had at least one member experiencing significant hunger due to lack of financial resources at some time in the past 12 months. You need to recalibrate your own laugh test. By the way, that 3.5% figure is sharply up from the previous year.
The `poor' in America wear designer clothes, drive cars...have homes, refrigerators, televisions....
That generalization is untrue as a blanket statement. I've heard that in not so many words from so many Republicans. Setting aside the fact that it's technically a falsehood, to the extent that it is true in part, I wonder if you know why that image aggravates you. What were you saying about appeals to envy?
systems such as welfare, for which you advocate massive tax hikes
I never said people who don't agree with me aren't giving credence to the words of Jesus. I just want to know how much credence you give the words of Jesus compared to the words of, e.g., Paul in Romans 13:1-7 which demands absolute servitude to government, including in paying taxes.
anyone who disagrees with you that a system which murdered one hundred million people in the last century, primarily the poor, and brought misery wherever it went, primarily to the poor, is the best thing to be done for the `poor' in America `doesn't care about poverty'.
Again, you're accusing me of supporting communism, which I detest. That's absurd.
From where are you quoting `doesn't care about poverty'?
As long as you stick to the idea that no one could possibly interpret the Bible differently except through ignorance or bad faith....
On the contrary, there are a whole lot of other reasons for different interpretations, such as the influence of the Holy Spirit for example. Who knows -- you may have been guided to your interpretation and me to mine just so that we might have this discussion. We got off on the wrong foot, but have both learned plenty so far in this thread. I'm sorry about the connotations of some of the words I find myself using; please try to look past them (e.g., one person's brainwashing is another person's enlightenment.)
I want to understand your interpretation of scripture, which is why I asked you if you believe the words of Jesus should take precedence over the other portions of the Bible. There are plenty of denominations that agree with Quakers on this point, and plenty that do not. What is your take on the subject?
capitalism provides more improvement in standards of living for the poor as well as the rich
More than what? I can not bring myself to believe that you truly believe that socialism and capitalism are mutualy exclusive, but you keep writing as if you do. Would you please state your position on this matter?
stop expecting others to take it as a given that capitalism is bad for the poor (it isn't)
I have no such expectation, and agree that it isn't. Socialism minus capitalism leaves communism, which is terrible. Poverty is exacerbated by regressive taxation, not capitalism. A truly progressive tax structure requires capitalism, because communism is a 100% property tax, which is regressive both because it is a property tax and because it is a flat tax.
America has produced more liberty, more democracy, and more prosperity at all levels of society than other system in the world's history
Where is the liberty in our proportionally huge prison population bloated with nonviolent victims of prohibition? Too many people who go down the path Rush Limbaugh has end up in jail with manditory minimum sentences measured in decades. Is that more liberty than exists in England, the Netherlands, Denmark, etc., where prohibition is an afterthought and treatment for abuse comes first?
Where is the democracy in a presidential contest that turned on the disqualification of thousands of voters because they shared a name with a felon? Or in districts so gerrymandered that parties lock in their seats there for decades? Or an antequated electorial college with a strong spoiler effect frequently causing the most popular ideology to split their votes between candidates allowing a less popular ideology with a single candidate to win with a mere plurality? Surely Australia, Canada, and Brazil with their preferential transferable voting have more democracy.
Neocon, communists are not the same as socialists -- the former do not recognize private property and the latter do. I am not advocating communism, which I agree has been utterly terrible. I am advocating progressive socialism, which by example is compatible with capitalism, as it has been flourishing in Scandinavia for the past century.
Cost of housing: The average annual rent (including heating costs) for a flat with three rooms and a kitchen finished in 1998 was Euro 660 per month (SEK 72900 annual) and for a four rooms and kitchen flat Euro 850 per month (SEK 92600 annual).
-- http://www.eu-rm.com/Countries/Sweden.asp
Okay, there you have it. If that isn't a definitive figure from a definitive source, I don't know what is. So, using Denver for typical U.S. rents, 3BR range from $900-1300. Calling that $1100 means the ratio is more like 3:4 than 1:3, so I am clearly wrong about the cost of living in Sweden
I apologize.
However, my false assumptions were based on a very significant child housing credit, which I need to learn more about.
Now that you've acknowledged the salary differential between Swedes and Americans, you are trying to tell us that the cost of living is so much lower in Sweden as to make up for salaries being less than half what they are here.
No, I've been saying Swedes have houshold purchasing power on par with that of the U.S. since my first comment in reply to you in this thread, because I know it from travels, friends, and cited sources.
But what evidence do you bring of this? A single anecdotal comparison of apartment prices in one of the highest-priced and most over-inflated real estate markets in the US (the San Francisco Bay Area) with an allegedly `typical' swedish apartment cost.
Your selectivity is tiring. I also included rents from Pittsburgh, PA classifieds to represent the low end of the U.S. university housing market. As for my "allegedly typical" citation from a Swedish government web site, here's another from academia. Where in the U.S. can you find a 2295 square foot (65 sq. meter) apartment for $600/month (4,500 SEK)? In Denver, CO, such apartments are being advertised at around $1,700. Why, that's nearly three times as much!
You are right about the higher cost of gasoline, of course, but at least as far as my family's budget is concerned, gasoline expenses are about 2.5% of housing expenses.
Regressivity is a matter of degrees, there is no "most progressive," only more or less progressive than something else. As far at the industrialized (OCED) nations go, the U.S. is usually battling Mexico for the title of "most regressive." I know many people in the U.S. think their taxes are very progressive. Like many Americans, they are unaware of the facts in the world around them.
Sweden's ``greatly improved'' employment situation is a level of unemployment about 35% above the US level.
What? Sweden has 4% unemployment vs. 6% here (according to the CIA, which I presume measures in compatible units.)
the bottom thirty-five percent or so of Americans pay no income tax at all
There's an example of an insular world view: 35% is very low. It's over 50% in Scandinavia.
without reference to the rest of the Bible or to what Christians have actually believed down through the ages....
Do you see "the rest of the Bible" subordinate to the direct quotes of Jesus? Why do you care what Christians have believed through the ages? A lot of different sets words have been sewn into the same binding as the words of Christ through the centuries. Christians have believed some very evil things through the years. Back when the Quakers were running the underground railroad, protestant churches in the South were debating whether when lashing slaves, the slaveowner was allowed to break the slaves' skin or not, with the vast majority allowing the practice.
the two passages you cite both represent instructions of Christ to specific of his apostles
No, the first was John the Baptist, talking to the public at large, and the other was Jesus speaking to a pious rich man, as is plain in the context quoted. Are you even familiar with the books of the gospel?
if we were to take these statements as a declaration that Christ expected his followers not to own property -- and through history, only a few violent fringe movements... have held this.
I was not aware that the Dominicans were violent.
Is socialism actually a good way to help the poor?
What is the alternative? As we've been over, technically the U.S. has been socialist since the imposition of the income tax. Socialism a matter of degrees, from the small relativly regressive taxes of the U.S. to the much more progressive taxes of Scandinavia, roughly twice the size of the U.S's as a percent of GDP.
Do you purport that tithes to charity alone are enough to fight poverty? The vast majority of all the countries in the world, at every point in their history are counter examples. The only places that have managed to get poverty under 1% have steeply progressive socialist tax structures.
the Soviet Union... Cambodia... China's waves of collectivization.... you're undoubtedly huffing and puffing, and getting ready to write a post which says ``but THOSE weren't REAL socialists''.
They were all communists, which you no doubt see as an extreme form of socialism. On the contrary, communism is not progressive by definition: eliminating private property amounts to a 100% property tax, which is regressive because it is not a tax on income and it is a flat tax.
And as we've already seen in this thread, even nations which dabbled lightly in socialism have ended producing mainly stagnation and unemployment, neither of which help the poor all that much, now do they?
Of course they do! According to Sweden, their poverty rate is 0.2%; according to the U.S. CIA, it's too small to measure. We've been over that at least twice in the past two days.
Progressive socialism isn't about property taxation, which is regressive (e.g. widows and orphans and disabled w/o income.) It's about income tax, which is why the U.S. amended the Constitution to allow income taxation in the first place. If you think I'm going to respond to your suggestion that massive one-time property taxation is a form of socialist wealth redistribution, you're wrong. I've seen more persuasive straw men from 9th grade debate contestants.
the Bible is very clear that while Christians must submit to earthly authority when it is within its legitimate reach, it is equally clear that this does not amount to a carte blanche embrace of state power
It seems that you aren't very familiar with the Bible. As a Quaker, I happen to know that you are very wrong about this because of the very reason that (1) Quakers rely on the quoted
Lately several presentations I've seen at Stanford and other Silicon Valley public venues have been getting text-dense with the presenter just reading the slides. Yuck.
We can argue for a long time about the minutae of Sweden's post-crash unemployment numbers and their meaning.
However, since the rate of change is so important to you, Neocon (as evidenced by your continued touting of the past six months in the U.S.), then the fact that Sweden went from whatever to 4% in three years should be enough for both of us.
a Swede earns between 25 and 45 percent of the salary of an American
Well, studio appartments in San Jose, CA are running $800-900 and in Pittsburgh, PA they're $600-700, versus Sweden at about $300, so if rents are any guide then purchasing power is at rough parity. Food costs about the same in both places, but no charge for healthcare, education,daycare, etc. in Sweden, so it's a wash.
the top one percent of Americans pay 36% of all income taxes -- and this is the system you describe as `regressive'
First of all, that factoid is misleading when you consider the proportion of income paid in relation to the other tax brackets -- you are ignoring sales and property taxes, for one thing. In relation to all the other countries, it is regressive because the amounts involved are tiny.
it's clear that you're not on the popular side of the upcoming election.
Please keep telling me that because I hope it will make me work harder. As for the correctness of the position, I hope we can discuss that in another part of this thread.
Neocon, I want to set aside arguing about the economy of Sweden for a while and go back to this point:
I would argue that when I work all day for money to feed, house, and clothe myself and my family, that money is mine, and if the government wants to take it away, it better have a [good] reason.
I see in your journal that you are a Christian, but I'm not sure about the details of your beliefs, other than that you suggest that the story of Onan is a prohibition on contraception; therfore I'm going to guess that the abortion issue is very important to you; please correct me if I am wrong. I am a Quaker who believes in salvation through the Grace of Christ's sacrafice, and in the teaching of Jesus in his own words, above the writings of his followers.
To disclose my other assumptions, I am fairly sure from your writings that you must agree with the essential points of this article -- again, please correct me if I am wrong.
So, my question is, what do you think of the difference between Luke 3:7-11, with John the Baptist speaking prior to Christ's sacrifice...
7
Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, "O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
8
"Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
9
"And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: every tree therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire."
10
And the people asked him, saying, "What shall we do then?"
11
He answereth and saith unto them, "He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise."
...to that of Mark 10:17-23, with Jesus speaking, prior to his sacrifice:
17
And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, "Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?"
18
And Jesus said unto him, "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
19
"Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother."
20
And he answered and said unto him, "Master, all these have I observed from my youth."
21
Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, "One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me."
22
And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.
23
And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, "How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!"
Hardly a week goes by when I don't read some biblical prohibition against abortion cut from whole cloth. I wonder what non-Quaker Christians these days make of the plainspoken words of Christ.
"Registered," in Sweden, means people activly seeking work, which is exactly how the U.S. BLS measures unemployment.
You are also mistaken about the difference in cost of living required for purchasing power parity. According to the CIA, Swedes earn $25,400 per capita, while the U.S. earns $37,600 per capita. That is two thirds, not one third. A studio apartment for a university student in Sweden costs about $300 per month. How much does housing cost around your nearest university?
So, after being factually wrong on two counts, you tell me that I "go off the rhetorical deep end" -- is that for suggesting that socialism and capitalism are not mutually exclusive, or suggesting that progressivism contributes to longivity, I wonder?
Look, if you think it's absurd that socialism and capitalism are mutually exclusive, why do you think that Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Denmark keep their bottom tax bracket at 0%? It's because they want to maximize the spending power of the poor because there are more of them than the rich. That, in turn, is because 2/3rds of modern economies are driven by consumers. They are capitalist, with a saftey net, it's just that their net is better designed than ours.
You were, however, absolutly right about governors being elected in March rather than November. I'm not interested in keeping score or arguing about who is leading in next November's race -- tortise and hare, hubris, pride before fall, complacency, etc. -- I don't whether I'm on the popular side, I want to be on the correct side, and I want the correct side to win.
Neocon, most of your rhetoric from the parent post is addressed in this other post.
I am glad to have met someone of your political persuasion, because I am both enjoying and gaining valuable experience in this debate. After skimming your slashdot journal, I have enfriended you so that I might keep up with it.
For as much as we disagree, I must thank you wholeheartedly for the stimulation. It's been months since Slashdot has had a decent political discussion.
I'm sorry I made all those "scary socialism is gunna gitcha," I wasn't sure how serious or mature you were until I skimmed your journal and I'm sorry I treated you like a kid.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe 'registered unemployed' == U.S. unemployement rate (people activly looking for work) whereas 'total imbalance' includes those not activly seeking work.
You're right about March/November -- sorry about that.
the 2002 elections handed Bush the largest mid-term electoral victory of any president's party.... And even more interestingly, this year's off-year gubernatorial elections saw major Republican victories, including in states which haven't had a Republican governor for 130 years.
Sure, but that was back in March (except for California, granted), and compare Bush's popularity ratings from then to those from now.
... this November should answer that question conclusively. Care to place a friendly bet?
Convince me you can be honest with Sweden's unemployment numbers and I'll consider it.
Again, if you consider the lower cost of living in Sweden, this is not true in terms of purchasing power, where Sweden is on par with the U.S. (Note from that link that big-city university student rents are about 250 euros.)
Anyway, as your citation says:
The Swedish economy is currently developing satisfactorily. Growth is high. The number of jobs is climbing and unemployment is falling, while inflation is low. Both public finances and the current account are in surplus.
Your interpretation of "stagnant" growth is not based in fact.
As for unemployment, your citation reads, "In November 2000, registered unemployment was 170,000 people, or 3.9 percent of the labor force." Do you make up statistics just for the fun of it?
Another thing to keep in mind is that Sweden puts about 90% of their unemployed into retraining programs with a stipend similar to U.S. unemployment insurance. That is why they recover so quickly.
Not quite the `workers paradise' you wish us to believe in, eh?
I never said that Sweden was perfect or a paradise, just quantitivly and qualitativly beter economically than the U.S. I prefer the weather in where I live.
these numbers have held steady in Sweden for decades
Which numbers, the ones you made up? Swedes agree that conditions were better before they joined the EU's regressive VAT tax scheme. The Swedes I know consider the 70s to be Sweden's economic golden age.
growth... something which only capitalism has to offer
That's just absurd. Firstly, capitalism and socialism are not mutually exclusive. There are no pure capitalist economies devoid of all socialism anywhere anymore, and those that did exist were usually done in by disease or crime, both symptoms of poverty.
If you want to actually look at the outcomes, you have to ask yourself, do you want to stick with a regressive system, like in the U.S., where the middle class is shrinking? How can that not lead to riots other than by the imposition of facism? Or, do you want to join the progressive economies and get, among other things, an extra 3.5 years of life expectancy?
The very rich, who profit from regressitivity and sponsor it's lobbying through, e.g., DCI's astroturf "Tech Central Station," and foundations and radio comentary and other traditional methods of propaganda, are winning. Do you want to aid them on their greedy path to riots, or do you want a superior quality of life?
In Sweden for example, they have two tax brackets, 0% and 57% -- the top bracket begins at 10% above the mean wage. Therefore, most Swedes pay no income tax; less than half pay all.
Am I supposed to believe that this is a Good Thing?
I guess that depends on how much you want the majority of consumers, who normally comprise 2/3rds of an economy, to have unbridled spending power. It's not like people who earn more than 10% above average lose their incentive to earn more. The essential fact that right-wing economists try to downplay about Sweden is that their two-bracket system is as close to the flat tax as you can get while remaining progressive.
A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on Paul's support.
Look, in the U.S., Social Security is a semi-progressive form of socialism, as is medicare. Technically, the U.S. has had socialism since the imposition of the income tax. The difference between the U.S. and Sweden is only a matter of degrees, in particular, the extent to which the "redistribution of wealth" inherent in entitlements is progressive or regressive. It's not like we don't already have a capitalist economy with socialist entitlements. Capitalism and socialism are not mutually exclusive.
Do you think Sweden isn't healthy?
Fiscally, no.
What evidence is their to support your opinion? If you look at the outcomes, by nearly every measure Sweden has better quality of life than the U.S.
Sure, you're probably convinced of your ideology, but are you going to look at outcomes or not?
If you believe it's so great, though, why don't you move to their socialist worker's paradise and leave those of us in the free world alone?
First of all, I never said Sweden is a paradise or anywhere near perfect, just superior economically to the U.S.
Second, I have contracts and family in the U.S., and the weather in San Jose, Calif. is superior to anywhere in Scandinavia. If it weren't for all that, I might very well go there.
Finally, taking that line of argument does nothing to improve conditions. "Love it or leave it" is the very essence of jingoism.
We're awfully close to having half of the population being able to soak the other half of the population...a Bad Thing for the continued health of our nation.
On the contrary! Take a look at Scandinavian income taxes. In Sweden for example, they have two tax brackets, 0% and 57% -- the top bracket begins at 10% above the mean wage. Therefore, most Swedes pay no income tax; less than half pay all. Do you think Sweden isn't healthy? They have 3.5 more years of life expectancy than we do, the longest in the world. The also have the lowest infant mortality in the world. Their poverty rate is 0.2%, so low that the CIA reports it as "NA%". They have low (2.2%) inflation and (4%) unemployment, and national debt. Their GDP growth and spending power denominated by cost of living is on par with that of the U.S. They lead Europe in literacy and access to health care. They provide their citizens and immigrants with free education through four years of college. They have less than 1% unmet demand for daycare. They have a vibrant economy at all levels, from sole proprietorships (no impovrished underclass to provide cheap labor for mom-and-pop-killing Wal-Marts) to multinationals (e.g., Ikea, Ericsson, Volvo, Saab, etc.)
Slashdot Mirror
Proof by example, from Scandinavia over the past century. It's not my brand, after all, I just pointed to the place with the lowest infant mortality and longest lifespans.
You still have not answered these:
3. Do you agree that socialism and capitalism are not mutually exclusive? I'm still waiting to read how you classify Scandinavia.
4. Do you agree that the U.S. has been socialist since the imposition of the income tax? Looking back on your posts, you didn't exactly disagree with me when I called the U.S. entitlements socialist, but, again, I wonder how you use the term. It would be helpful if you would let me understand what you mean by the word. I'm more than willing to sync up to your terminology.
5. Is abortion a more important issue to you than poverty? Again, you never even touched on this after having been asked directly three times. Why?
You can accuse me of quoting out of context all you want (I provided several verses of context.) And, of course reasonable people will often have different interpretations. But I am not putting words in Jesus's mouth to further my rhetoric! The word "only" doesn't appear in any translation of that quotation. It does, however, appear quite frequently in paraphrases by people who are jumping through hoops to minimize their taxes.
So, you find the "military anaologies" more to your liking than the direct admonition to turn the other cheek? Indeed, the Quakers are in the minority on this point, which speaks volumes about the state of Christianity today.
I can tell you weren't raised on a ranch. Ask any cowboy whether a whip is for cracking or cutting.
I agree that job creation helps, which is one of the primary reasons I oppose President Bush and the Republican Party.
Absurd! 3.5% of U.S. households had at least one member experiencing significant hunger due to lack of financial resources at some time in the past 12 months. You need to recalibrate your own laugh test. By the way, that 3.5% figure is sharply up from the previous year.
That generalization is untrue as a blanket statement. I've heard that in not so many words from so many Republicans. Setting aside the fact that it's technically a falsehood, to the extent that it is true in part, I wonder if you know why that image aggravates you. What were you saying about appeals to envy?
You weren't payi
What so many people are forgetting is that before, 9/11, the Bush administration agreed that Iraq didn't have WMD.
Trust me it's worth the $5.
Again, you're accusing me of supporting communism, which I detest. That's absurd.
From where are you quoting `doesn't care about poverty'?
On the contrary, there are a whole lot of other reasons for different interpretations, such as the influence of the Holy Spirit for example. Who knows -- you may have been guided to your interpretation and me to mine just so that we might have this discussion. We got off on the wrong foot, but have both learned plenty so far in this thread. I'm sorry about the connotations of some of the words I find myself using; please try to look past them (e.g., one person's brainwashing is another person's enlightenment.)
I want to understand your interpretation of scripture, which is why I asked you if you believe the words of Jesus should take precedence over the other portions of the Bible. There are plenty of denominations that agree with Quakers on this point, and plenty that do not. What is your take on the subject?
More than what? I can not bring myself to believe that you truly believe that socialism and capitalism are mutualy exclusive, but you keep writing as if you do. Would you please state your position on this matter?
I have no such expectation, and agree that it isn't. Socialism minus capitalism leaves communism, which is terrible. Poverty is exacerbated by regressive taxation, not capitalism. A truly progressive tax structure requires capitalism, because communism is a 100% property tax, which is regressive both because it is a property tax and because it is a flat tax.
Where is the liberty in our proportionally huge prison population bloated with nonviolent victims of prohibition? Too many people who go down the path Rush Limbaugh has end up in jail with manditory minimum sentences measured in decades. Is that more liberty than exists in England, the Netherlands, Denmark, etc., where prohibition is an afterthought and treatment for abuse comes first?
Where is the democracy in a presidential contest that turned on the disqualification of thousands of voters because they shared a name with a felon? Or in districts so gerrymandered that parties lock in their seats there for decades? Or an antequated electorial college with a strong spoiler effect frequently causing the most popular ideology to split their votes between candidates allowing a less popular ideology with a single candidate to win with a mere plurality? Surely Australia, Canada, and Brazil with their preferential transferable voting have more democracy.
Prosperity at all levels? On the contrary, only Mexico has more children in poverty.
As for Howard Dean, the British libertarians say he has three mainstream candidates to his left. (Probably primarily because he has balanced his budgets.)
Please, answer these five yes-or-no questions:
I'd say Bush is a WMD, too.
65 m^2 == 700 ft^2. In Denver, apartments that size rent around $600, the same as listed for the Blekinge Institute of Technology, which is in Karlskrona, an upscale costal port.
So. Let's start over:
Okay, there you have it. If that isn't a definitive figure from a definitive source, I don't know what is. So, using Denver for typical U.S. rents, 3BR range from $900-1300. Calling that $1100 means the ratio is more like 3:4 than 1:3, so I am clearly wrong about the cost of living in Sweden
I apologize.
However, my false assumptions were based on a very significant child housing credit, which I need to learn more about.
No, I've been saying Swedes have houshold purchasing power on par with that of the U.S. since my first comment in reply to you in this thread, because I know it from travels, friends, and cited sources.
Your selectivity is tiring. I also included rents from Pittsburgh, PA classifieds to represent the low end of the U.S. university housing market. As for my "allegedly typical" citation from a Swedish government web site, here's another from academia. Where in the U.S. can you find a 2295 square foot (65 sq. meter) apartment for $600/month (4,500 SEK)? In Denver, CO, such apartments are being advertised at around $1,700. Why, that's nearly three times as much!
You are right about the higher cost of gasoline, of course, but at least as far as my family's budget is concerned, gasoline expenses are about 2.5% of housing expenses.
Regressivity is a matter of degrees, there is no "most progressive," only more or less progressive than something else. As far at the industrialized (OCED) nations go, the U.S. is usually battling Mexico for the title of "most regressive." I know many people in the U.S. think their taxes are very progressive. Like many Americans, they are unaware of the facts in the world around them.
What? Sweden has 4% unemployment vs. 6% here (according to the CIA, which I presume measures in compatible units.)
There's an example of an insular world view: 35% is very low. It's over 50% in Scandinavia.
Do you see "the rest of the Bible" subordinate to the direct quotes of Jesus? Why do you care what Christians have believed through the ages? A lot of different sets words have been sewn into the same binding as the words of Christ through the centuries. Christians have believed some very evil things through the years. Back when the Quakers were running the underground railroad, protestant churches in the South were debating whether when lashing slaves, the slaveowner was allowed to break the slaves' skin or not, with the vast majority allowing the practice.
No, the first was John the Baptist, talking to the public at large, and the other was Jesus speaking to a pious rich man, as is plain in the context quoted. Are you even familiar with the books of the gospel?
I was not aware that the Dominicans were violent.
What is the alternative? As we've been over, technically the U.S. has been socialist since the imposition of the income tax. Socialism a matter of degrees, from the small relativly regressive taxes of the U.S. to the much more progressive taxes of Scandinavia, roughly twice the size of the U.S's as a percent of GDP.
Do you purport that tithes to charity alone are enough to fight poverty? The vast majority of all the countries in the world, at every point in their history are counter examples. The only places that have managed to get poverty under 1% have steeply progressive socialist tax structures.
They were all communists, which you no doubt see as an extreme form of socialism. On the contrary, communism is not progressive by definition: eliminating private property amounts to a 100% property tax, which is regressive because it is not a tax on income and it is a flat tax.
Of course they do! According to Sweden, their poverty rate is 0.2%; according to the U.S. CIA, it's too small to measure. We've been over that at least twice in the past two days.
Progressive socialism isn't about property taxation, which is regressive (e.g. widows and orphans and disabled w/o income.) It's about income tax, which is why the U.S. amended the Constitution to allow income taxation in the first place. If you think I'm going to respond to your suggestion that massive one-time property taxation is a form of socialist wealth redistribution, you're wrong. I've seen more persuasive straw men from 9th grade debate contestants.
It seems that you aren't very familiar with the Bible. As a Quaker, I happen to know that you are very wrong about this because of the very reason that (1) Quakers rely on the quoted
I thought several audiotapes and one 2003 videotape from Bin Laden had been confirmed as genuine.
Lately several presentations I've seen at Stanford and other Silicon Valley public venues have been getting text-dense with the presenter just reading the slides. Yuck.
n/t
WTF?
I smell a troll.
Well, studio appartments in San Jose, CA are running $800-900 and in Pittsburgh, PA they're $600-700, versus Sweden at about $300, so if rents are any guide then purchasing power is at rough parity. Food costs about the same in both places, but no charge for healthcare, education,daycare, etc. in Sweden, so it's a wash.
First of all, that factoid is misleading when you consider the proportion of income paid in relation to the other tax brackets -- you are ignoring sales and property taxes, for one thing. In relation to all the other countries, it is regressive because the amounts involved are tiny.
Please keep telling me that because I hope it will make me work harder. As for the correctness of the position, I hope we can discuss that in another part of this thread.
I see in your journal that you are a Christian, but I'm not sure about the details of your beliefs, other than that you suggest that the story of Onan is a prohibition on contraception; therfore I'm going to guess that the abortion issue is very important to you; please correct me if I am wrong. I am a Quaker who believes in salvation through the Grace of Christ's sacrafice, and in the teaching of Jesus in his own words, above the writings of his followers.
To disclose my other assumptions, I am fairly sure from your writings that you must agree with the essential points of this article -- again, please correct me if I am wrong.
So, my question is, what do you think of the difference between Luke 3:7-11, with John the Baptist speaking prior to Christ's sacrifice...
Hardly a week goes by when I don't read some biblical prohibition against abortion cut from whole cloth. I wonder what non-Quaker Christians these days make of the plainspoken words of Christ.
You are mistaken, Neocon:
"Registered," in Sweden, means people activly seeking work, which is exactly how the U.S. BLS measures unemployment.
You are also mistaken about the difference in cost of living required for purchasing power parity. According to the CIA, Swedes earn $25,400 per capita, while the U.S. earns $37,600 per capita. That is two thirds, not one third. A studio apartment for a university student in Sweden costs about $300 per month. How much does housing cost around your nearest university?
So, after being factually wrong on two counts, you tell me that I "go off the rhetorical deep end" -- is that for suggesting that socialism and capitalism are not mutually exclusive, or suggesting that progressivism contributes to longivity, I wonder?
Look, if you think it's absurd that socialism and capitalism are mutually exclusive, why do you think that Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Denmark keep their bottom tax bracket at 0%? It's because they want to maximize the spending power of the poor because there are more of them than the rich. That, in turn, is because 2/3rds of modern economies are driven by consumers. They are capitalist, with a saftey net, it's just that their net is better designed than ours.
You were, however, absolutly right about governors being elected in March rather than November. I'm not interested in keeping score or arguing about who is leading in next November's race -- tortise and hare, hubris, pride before fall, complacency, etc. -- I don't whether I'm on the popular side, I want to be on the correct side, and I want the correct side to win.
I am glad to have met someone of your political persuasion, because I am both enjoying and gaining valuable experience in this debate. After skimming your slashdot journal, I have enfriended you so that I might keep up with it.
For as much as we disagree, I must thank you wholeheartedly for the stimulation. It's been months since Slashdot has had a decent political discussion.
I'm sorry I made all those "scary socialism is gunna gitcha," I wasn't sure how serious or mature you were until I skimmed your journal and I'm sorry I treated you like a kid.
You're right about March/November -- sorry about that.
Sure, but that was back in March (except for California, granted), and compare Bush's popularity ratings from then to those from now.
Convince me you can be honest with Sweden's unemployment numbers and I'll consider it.Again, if you consider the lower cost of living in Sweden, this is not true in terms of purchasing power, where Sweden is on par with the U.S. (Note from that link that big-city university student rents are about 250 euros.)
Anyway, as your citation says:
Your interpretation of "stagnant" growth is not based in fact.
As for unemployment, your citation reads, "In November 2000, registered unemployment was 170,000 people, or 3.9 percent of the labor force." Do you make up statistics just for the fun of it?
Another thing to keep in mind is that Sweden puts about 90% of their unemployed into retraining programs with a stipend similar to U.S. unemployment insurance. That is why they recover so quickly.
I never said that Sweden was perfect or a paradise, just quantitivly and qualitativly beter economically than the U.S. I prefer the weather in where I live.
Which numbers, the ones you made up? Swedes agree that conditions were better before they joined the EU's regressive VAT tax scheme. The Swedes I know consider the 70s to be Sweden's economic golden age.
That's just absurd. Firstly, capitalism and socialism are not mutually exclusive. There are no pure capitalist economies devoid of all socialism anywhere anymore, and those that did exist were usually done in by disease or crime, both symptoms of poverty.
If you want to actually look at the outcomes, you have to ask yourself, do you want to stick with a regressive system, like in the U.S., where the middle class is shrinking? How can that not lead to riots other than by the imposition of facism? Or, do you want to join the progressive economies and get, among other things, an extra 3.5 years of life expectancy?
The very rich, who profit from regressitivity and sponsor it's lobbying through, e.g., DCI's astroturf "Tech Central Station," and foundations and radio comentary and other traditional methods of propaganda, are winning. Do you want to aid them on their greedy path to riots, or do you want a superior quality of life?
I guess that depends on how much you want the majority of consumers, who normally comprise 2/3rds of an economy, to have unbridled spending power. It's not like people who earn more than 10% above average lose their incentive to earn more. The essential fact that right-wing economists try to downplay about Sweden is that their two-bracket system is as close to the flat tax as you can get while remaining progressive.
Look, in the U.S., Social Security is a semi-progressive form of socialism, as is medicare. Technically, the U.S. has had socialism since the imposition of the income tax. The difference between the U.S. and Sweden is only a matter of degrees, in particular, the extent to which the "redistribution of wealth" inherent in entitlements is progressive or regressive. It's not like we don't already have a capitalist economy with socialist entitlements. Capitalism and socialism are not mutually exclusive.
What evidence is their to support your opinion? If you look at the outcomes, by nearly every measure Sweden has better quality of life than the U.S.Sure, you're probably convinced of your ideology, but are you going to look at outcomes or not?
First of all, I never said Sweden is a paradise or anywhere near perfect, just superior economically to the U.S.
Second, I have contracts and family in the U.S., and the weather in San Jose, Calif. is superior to anywhere in Scandinavia. If it weren't for all that, I might very well go there.
Finally, taking that line of argument does nothing to improve conditions. "Love it or leave it" is the very essence of jingoism.
Not since this last Congress, they aren't!
On the contrary! Take a look at Scandinavian income taxes. In Sweden for example, they have two tax brackets, 0% and 57% -- the top bracket begins at 10% above the mean wage. Therefore, most Swedes pay no income tax; less than half pay all. Do you think Sweden isn't healthy? They have 3.5 more years of life expectancy than we do, the longest in the world. The also have the lowest infant mortality in the world. Their poverty rate is 0.2%, so low that the CIA reports it as "NA%". They have low (2.2%) inflation and (4%) unemployment, and national debt. Their GDP growth and spending power denominated by cost of living is on par with that of the U.S. They lead Europe in literacy and access to health care. They provide their citizens and immigrants with free education through four years of college. They have less than 1% unmet demand for daycare. They have a vibrant economy at all levels, from sole proprietorships (no impovrished underclass to provide cheap labor for mom-and-pop-killing Wal-Marts) to multinationals (e.g., Ikea, Ericsson, Volvo, Saab, etc.)
If you are interested in learning the truth about tax policy, I recommend Citizens for Tax Justice -- in particular their graph of marginal tax rates
No rhetoric or mapping can change the fact that Gore received half a million more votes than Bush.