cuba, the USSR, zambia, china, egypt, algeria, bolivia, north korea (i mean it's not like people are eating each other over there) that is a very bold statement with centuries of of contradictory evidence. i mean, if socialistic governments are so great, why did the arab spring occur? those are all strong central governments, and yet the people wanted something else. they may be worse off now with the muslim brotherhood in power, but that's a theocracy.Socialism saves lives.
except that it's not covered. the only reason to see sicko is to see michael more stay afloat in a boat long enough to make it to cuba. surely that's a trick of hollywood. michael moore is not a documentarian by any stretch of the imagination. why are 70,000 british citizens going abroad for health care as of 2007? might it be because they have no options in britain, they have no hope, and so look for it elsewhere? at least in the US (as long as obamacare gets shot down in the courts) you can get whatever treatment you need, and there are options to help you do it. why do you think so many new treatment options are available in the UK? because americans pioneered the treatment. the more a treatment is done, the more ways people figure out how to do it better and cheaper until it becomes cheap enough that it can go to countries that regulate their health care, the way britain does.If you want to see how, I reccomend you watch Michael Moore's "Sicko". In the UK if I happen to get a form of cancer that is extremely expensive to cure then the cost is covered by the tax payers. Everybody pays, and the cost tothem is less than if they had a few expensive operations. They can also rest easy at night knowing their treatment is peformed by people who's interest is their health not in making money.
i talked about this in section 1, but i'd like to say a little more about taxes and the economy. everyone talks about big oil. big oil is stealing from the consumer, big oil is hiking gas prices, big oil, big oil, big oil. did you know that exxon, one of the biggest oil companies in the world, has a profit margin of only 7.62%. for comparison, let's look at other US based companies: apple-27.13%, microsoft-29.34%, and google-27.1%. in 2010, exxon made $30.46 billion in profit, but when you compare that to the $78.6 billion they paid in taxes, it really puts their profits in perspective. as far as the wealthiest 1%, well, i for one think they pay enough in the US. according to taxfoundation.org, the wealthiest 1% pay 39.38% of the income tax burden, in the US. the top 10% pays 70.30% of the taxes in the US. i think we all pay enough taxes folks, maybe it's time for our governments do what their citizens do and spend within their means.GeneTwo is right though, if you want to balance the budget then increase tax proportionally, the rich (who can afford it) suffer the greatest increase in tax while the poor are left untouched.
true, this is a problem, but what is also a problem is people electing politicians who have never held a real job. i work for a living, as such i must blalnce my bills, but few of our politicians, particularly the democrats for some reason, have had to go through that. then, we had a chance to elect a man who had real business experience to bring to the table, who had a first hand knowledge on how economics work, and we let the media assassinate him from the race. because it makes more sense to keep a man in office who thinks that socialism (hello north korea) is a good economic plan. thumbs up.The problem with this is the people in power, due to the way the American (and British to a lesser extent) democratic systems work. Basically the rich are favoured over the poor. For example Obama has an estate of about $12,000,000 and Obama is in the bottom 3rd of members of the US senate. And guess what, they don't very much like the idea of increasing tax for themselves or their friends. Thats without mentioning lobbyists who greatly avert the direction of goverment policy in favour of the super rich individuals and corperations.
if it were not for excessive regulation which attempted to defy the basic principles of economics, this wouldn't be a problem. let's look at te US housing market. bush, fannie mae, and freddie mac all set out ot defy the laws of economics by doling out mcmansions to people with mcjobs. they sold houses that people couldn't afford to the people that couln't afford them and then shocker llnl they couldn't pay for them. that meant that all these loans were floating around out htere with no one to pay on them. if the market were allowed to set the interest rates, make loan decisions itself, and reap it's own rewards/consequences, we wouldn't be having this discussion. so to summarize, capitalism didn't fail, what failed was the idea the people could legislate prosperity. and for proof, over the last 200 years the US has become the envy of the world. for proof, just look at how many people try to come here illegaly (mexicos cheif export to the US is illegal immigrants), but since that's a hard number to gauge, let's look at the number of people who were naturalized between 2008-2010: 2,410,227. that's not including the number who applied, that's just those who were granted citizenship. damn. and america didn't start declining until we began implimenting socialist ideas.Europe would not be in the situation if it was not for Anglo-American banks collapsing. They were slow to realise the degree to which those collapses would affect their economies. If it was not for poor regulation of anglo-american banks then they would not have collapsed, the EU would not have been affected and suicide rates in countries would have stayed lower than that of the united states. To summarise, Capitilism was fatal for the EU and killed those people, not socialism. In fact a more heavily regulated, big goverment US would have prevented this collapse.
nothing against you man, but socialism has been proven a bad idea over and over again. nothing good ever comes from it. the cheif export of most socialist countries is its citizens and prosperity.