• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GOP governors consider turning down stimulus money [EDIT]

The following is a point lost on socialists: There will always be poor.
Average American "poor" is as well off as the average European in what are known as their best countries, strongest economies. It's plain to see, and Europeans who travel know it.

Yes it is plain to see, but you refuse to see it. US numbers and European numbers can often not be compared. Yet you and this study seem to do that, without any methodology mentioned. For example on the question of "poverty". The EU definition is widely different than the US definition.

But the big problem with this "study" is its source material and who has released it. Timbro, is a conservative think tank in Sweden for one. That is one red flag. And what I know of Swedish conservatives, especially from that period, they were and are very pro US and anti EU. Second redflag.

Now, many of the sources they do provide are sources that also gain lots of red flags. Sources from US conservative think tanks and books.. I mean come on.

The source for number of computers (and other things) is a book from 1999, which means the numbers are even older. Who wrote the book? 2 US conservatives. And you expect me to accept such a source without no access to the sources numbers?

This "study" looks more and more like another lame attempt by conservatives (and yes socialists do it also) to fit the study to a preconceived conclusion. You have to remember what political climate the study was written in. At the time of the release the Socialists had have power for a decade, with the Conservatives being out in the wilderness. On top of that the Conservatives were still fuming big time over the way the Swedish government had handled the financial crisis .. better known today as the "Swedish model" that Obama is thinking about and funny enough quite a few conservatives are advocating. Guess what, the Socialists were correct and the Conservatives were wrong. Today the former nationalised banks in Sweden are some of the most healthy banks in the world and it still pisses off the Swedish conservatives.

So again before you float a study like this, check sources, check who wrote it and so on.

Lack of something as simple as air conditioning in Paris cost 14,000 people their lives, and untold others in Europe. That's the cost of socialism in a nutshell. In Chicago they considered it, and it was, a catastrophe when 600 died of the same cause.

Give me a freaking break. Air Conditioning is not a norm in Northern France, or most of mid and northern Europe. There is normally no reason to have air condition as the temperature during the summer rarely hits even close to 30 degrees for more than a few days at a time. That summer the heat wave in Europe was very bad, with many days with above normal temperatures for many days. If anything, it was the failure of the French government at the time to not only accept the problem but to have a plan in place to deal with the problem.

But I can flip this one for you. How can it be, that in areas of the US where heat is a normal thing, people die every year to heat waves? If you are so good and great, then how can you have people dieing to such things? Is America not perfect? How can people die to exposure during the winter? How could people die to Katrina? If the US is so perfect?

Socialism has its costs.

Yep it does, as does capitalism. Look at what uncontrolled greedy capitalism has driven us into today! But that is not saying socialism is better, so dont even try to go there. You have no clue what socialism is any ways, like most conservatives. For US conservatives, anything that they are against is socialism.

It's only five years old.

No the study came out 5 years ago, the numbers used in the study are from the late 1990s and early 2000s .Hence 8 to 10+ year old numbers. The GDP numbers are 9 years old for one. Other sources are older than 10 years.

But for the socialists, you folks can take money, sprinkle it around like magic dust and predict what will happen in 10, 20, 50-years. And your predictions are almost always wrong.
Keynes was wrong. Stagflation was never supposed to happen.
Galbraith wrong.
Marx wrong.

von Mises, Hayek, Friedman, have a bit better record. Whether in America, New Zealand, Hong Kong or Chile... free markets and people freed from the shackles of government prosper... lifting all boats.

Oh they do? On what grounds do you claim this? Are you claiming that European countries are not free markets and free people?
 
The following is a point lost on socialists: There will always be poor.
Average American "poor" is as well off as the average European in what are known as their best countries, strongest economies. It's plain to see, and Europeans who travel know it.

Nuh uhh. Dey have der frwee heawft care....

And a huge external debt to equity ratio;)
 
How prosperous was the USSR? A better question would be, USSR who?
 
Last edited:
A Democrat finally...


Phil Bredesen may become the first Democratic governor to reject some funding earmarked for his state in the stimulus package.

Tennessee Gov. Bredesen, who is reported to be on the shortlist to take over the Department of Health and Human Services, told a Tennessee newspaper he had concerns similar to those of Republican governors who have suggested they would not take all the stimulus money.

South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (R), Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R), Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue (R) and Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) have all said they are concerned that taking additional money for their states' unemployment benefits programs would force them to expand those programs in perpetuity.

"We are evaluating this piece of money, whether it makes sense for us to take it," Bredesen told the Chattanooga Times Free Press. "We may well be one of the states that say we can't take on that portion of it."
TheHill.com - Dem governor may reject stimulus funding
 
Last edited:
This kind of divisionalism is not what the U.S. needs right now.
 
Back
Top Bottom