1 edit
Originally posted by scipio7777777Here:
where do you get these numbers from?
and even so why should we give money to others? we earned it we should be able to keep it if we so deem
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1231-01.htm
I'm not saying that you should give money to others, that is of course a matter for you as a sovereign nation. I'm simply saying that the illusion of US generosity does not endure a single nanosecond once the candlelight of reality casts its way.
As a socialist, I'd say that Redmike has got it spot on. There are no socialist countries, and the USSR with its tyrannical regime represented the exact opposite of everything that socialism stands for.
But cheer up guys, there are things happening in the world for us lefties to get excited about : such as the magnificent display of people power in Bolivia last week; and the radical experiments of Chavez in Venezuela, as described by Richard Gott in today's Guardian (UK) : http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1495260,00.html
Originally posted by AmauroteFirst, re tsunami relief, the article is dated 2004/12/31, five days after the tsunami, and is out of date.
Here:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1231-01.htm
I'm not saying that you should give money to others, that is of course a matter for you as a sovereign nation. I'm simply saying that the illusion of US generosity does not endure a single nanosecond once the candlelight of reality casts its way.
Second, it contains the statement: "Even when researchers told those being questioned that foreign aid does not include military assistance to other countries ..."
which is just wrong.
"Even when researchers told those being questioned that foreign aid does not include military assistance to other countries ..."i.e., it skews the numbers considerably.
which is just wrong.
b. i think there are still some communes in the mountains around Santa Cruz. they might even accept new members. or why don't the socialist members of RHP start their own?
c. i have never heard an endorsement of communism/socialism from someone who actually came from the USSR or China or Vietnam. if they were lucky enough to get out, the ones i've talked to detested the systems back home.
d. whatever socialism is, has it ever been used where sufficient controls were in place to prevent the system becoming an oligarchy?
e. www.m-w.com on socialism: "Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done "
Originally posted by bolshevikcheer up because some countries are turning 'socialist" which means they will either economically collapse our become opressive dictatorships as history shows
But cheer up guys, there are things happening in the world for us lefties to get excited about : such as the magnificent display of people power in Bolivia last week; and the radical experiments of Chavez in Venezuela, as described by Richard Gott in today's Guardian (UK) : http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1495260,00.html
Originally posted by zeeblebotits a form of socialism doesn't mean the whole country is socialist
most developed countries probably have welfare, isn't that socialist?
but it should be stricken if i could end welfare in america i would people need to work for their money not just get it handed to them out of the pockets of others
3 edits
Originally posted by zeeblebotWhich means nothing, since (a) disasters occur quite frequently, (b) the US response to the tsunami has been highly problematic (those complaints by recipient governments of "the money not coming through) are wearily familiar, and (c) proportionately it will almost certainly have made no difference at all. As for the military aid rider, you're quite right, but they also fail to point out that aid-for-economic-favours is not aid, either - which would have reduced the US figure to .3%. The OECD figures are generally perceived as an excellent measure, and they corroborate the article.
First, re tsunami relief, the article is dated 2004/12/31, five days after the tsunami, and is out of date.
Your definition of socialism is rhp-strange. Are you seriously saying that Clement Attlee was an oligarch, or that GDH Cole did not believe in private property?
Originally posted by Amaurotewww.m-w.com is Merriam-Webster, an American dictionary, maybe that's why it looks strange ... what is your definition of socialism?
Which means nothing, since (a) disasters occur quite frequently, (b) the US response to the tsunami has been highly problematic (those complaints by recipient governments of "the money not coming through) are wearily familiar, and (c) proportionately it will almost certainly have made no difference at all. As for the military aid rider, you're quite right ...[text shortened]... ying that Clement Attlee was an oligarch, or that GDH Cole did not believe in private property?
re item b:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanitarian_response_to_the_2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake
note that "cost of operating military resources" is excluded from some tables.
http://www.philanthropy.iupui.edu/nr-tsunami_relief.html
"PRIVATE U.S. TSUNAMI RELIEF DONATIONS TOP $1 BILLION "
(that was dated 2005/02/25)
http://usinfo.state.gov/gi/Archive/2005/Mar/05-433015.html
... "At the height of the relief effort, some 16,000 U.S. military personnel were deployed throughout the areas most affected by the tragedy. More than two dozen U.S. ships (including an aircraft carrier battle group, a Marine amphibious group, and the hospital ship USNS Mercy, which remained after the main Naval forces departed) and over 100 aircraft were dedicated to the disaster relief effort at an estimated cost of some $5 million a day. Those costs are part of the $346 million the U.S. spent for immediate relief. On February 9 President Bush announced an additional commitment of more than $600 million, bringing the total actual and pledged U.S. government aid to $950 million. In addition, substantial donations of roughly $700 million -- and still growing -- have been raised through efforts spearheaded by former Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton from corporate, institutional and personal American contributions."
Originally posted by Amauroteoh ....
Your definition of socialism is rhp-strange. Are you seriously saying that Clement Attlee was an oligarch, or that GDH Cole did not believe in private property?
did Attlee or Cole control any socialist countries, or form their own socialist enclaves, or did they just dabble in it?
(i will need to wiki thos guys but it's getting late ...)