When I look up "Nordic model," what is displayed mentions "capitalism," "social programs," and "wealth redistribution." While that last one is a red flag, to me, of a socialist tendency, no where did the article mention "socialism."

That's just it. While y'all use the word socialism as a pejorative, you don't understand what it really means. I.e. all the above, and then some.

If you were taught unbiased political science at school, you'd have a better understanding of how bad your society is for everyone but the filthy rich, and what enormous benefits it would be for you if you abandoned your corporate capitalism and tried social capitalism for a change.



..
--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; sv-SE; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20101125
* Origin: news://eljaco.se:4119 (2:203/2)

Look at you? Talking about socialism the way you are. Sweden is in fact, very pro-capitalism, but does have redistribution through taxes. Personal income is
taxed at a rate of 61.85 percent, plus a 7 percent social security tax rate fo
employees. On top of these taxes, Sweden also has
a 25 percent consumption tax.

Yes, they figured out that, without capitalist practicies, there would not
be enough money-exchanges to be taxed to help pay for all of their social programs. They are a mostly homogeneous society, too, which makes things
like this easier on them.


* SLMR 2.1a * ....we came in?
--- SBBSecho 3.12-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

Sweden is in fact, very pro-capitalism,

Exactly. That's obviously what some of you can't understand about *real* so
alism.

That is not *real* socialism. Many in the west may point to your country
and think it is "socialist" but it is not. Do they have lots of social programs? Yes. Do they get taxed out the rear to pay for them? Yes.

When I look up "Nordic model," what is displayed mentions "capitalism,"
"social programs," and "wealth redistribution." While that last one is a
red flag, to me, of a socialist tendency, no where did the article mention "socialism."

There are apparently many Americans who are not willing enough to pay such
high taxes in order to have such social programs. Some of them might not be
so much against it if they thought that our Federal Government, no matter who is in charge, could be trusted to administer such programs.

Instead, our government keeps spending our tax dollars on extra bureaucracy to administer programs and support the programs and the government in general (much more than necessary), and to support their "pay for play" political allies who get their hands in it. All the while, they try to keep coming back to us for more money. Meanwhile, the people who need the services are never properly served.

I believe we do have some states that could pull things like this off at a state level. Other states, like mine, have the same "pay for play" machine that backs the party usually in charge of the Governor's Office. They fully expect to get their "pay" or that Governor won't last long.


* SLMR 2.1a * Isn't this where....
--- SBBSecho 3.12-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

When I look up "Nordic model," what is displayed mentions "capitalism "social programs," and "wealth redistribution." While that last one red flag, to me, of a socialist tendency, no where did the article me "socialism."

That's just it. While y'all use the word socialism as a pejorative,
you don't understand what it really means. I.e. all the above, and then some.

Sorry but your country isn't socalist and social programs and a welfare state isn't socialism. Socialism is when the government owns the means of production. Like Venezuela. High tax/high services is simply that.

TL;DR
Social programs != socialism

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A47 2021/12/24 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: 2o fOr beeRS bbS>>20ForBeers.com:1337 (1:105/420)

On 30 Jan 2022, Doug McComber said the following...

Sorry but your country isn't socalist and social programs and a welfare state isn't socialism. Socialism is when the government owns the means
of production. Like Venezuela. High tax/high services is simply that.

Doug! My man! Could you *please* preach this message to the US conservatives who scream "Socialism!" whenever higher taxes or increased social programs
are proposed? PLEASE??? They are in desperate need of being told this by someone they trust. Lord knows I've tried, but I just get called a
"socialist" for pointing out what socialism is and isn't.

Jeff.
--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (1:387/26)

When I look up "Nordic model," what is displayed mentions "capitalism," >MP> "social programs," and "wealth redistribution." While that last one is a >MP> red flag, to me, of a socialist tendency, no where did the article mention >MP> "socialism."

That's just it. While y'all use the word socialism as a pejorative, you don't >understand what it really means. I.e. all the above, and then some.

No, I just don't understand what it means when defined by you.

I am sure there are several here in the states who don't use socialist as a pejorative that would read the description of Nordic Model and see it as
not being socialist enough for them to call it "socialism."

A couple of years ago, one of our congress people referred to another one
of the Nordic countries as "socialist." Their head-of-state was quick to correct the error and point out that their country is not socialist. I am willing to take his word for it over yours.

If you were taught unbiased political science at school, you'd have a bette
understanding of how bad your society is for everyone but the filthy rich, and
hat enormous benefits it would be for you if you abandoned your corporate capi
lism and tried social capitalism for a change.

I have already explained to you why many of us, who might think those
programs are nice, would not trust our federal government to ever
administer them. If I was younger, I might find them tempting also. But I
am not. I do not want to have to work the rest of my life, paying heavier taxes, so that someone else who is not contributing *by choice* benefits
from my employment.

You can call that selfish, but I call it practical. I want to enjoy my old age, not die working.


* SLMR 2.1a * "Tryin' is the first step towards failure." - Homer
--- SBBSecho 3.12-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

I have already explained to you why many of us, who might think those programs are nice, would not trust our federal government to ever administer them.

I totally understand that, Mike. I wouldn't trust a government as corrupt to the core, as the ones you've managed to create almost from the start -- starting with white, male slave owners in charge. But it's your choice now, isn't it? You've voted for those criminals now in charge, no?

But if you start with actually addressing the corruption, maybe you could get a government that you actually could trust to be a government of the people, by the people, for the people. Don't you read the Gettysburg Address any more?

The first step to stop the obscene, almost unique, corruption in the USA could be as simple as changing the rule (law, even?) about donations. Only allow donations up to $200, only one and only from registered voters.

After that we could start talking about gerrymandering, Electoral Collage and filibuster. Make America Great Again? Again? When was that? USA has never been great, only powerful thanks to economic and military might.


..
--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; sv-SE; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20101125
* Origin: news://eljaco.se:4119 (2:203/2)

But if you start with actually addressing the corruption, maybe you could g
a government that you actually could trust to be a government of the people,
the people, for the people. Don't you read the Gettysburg Address any more?

When I was in school, we did. I used to have a copy of one of Lincoln's
other addresses on my wall when I was a kid. Lincoln's birthplace is
nearby.

We also learned about Washington's concerns about what a two-party system
would do to our country.

I don't know what they teach kids now.

The first step to stop the obscene, almost unique, corruption in the USA co
d be as simple as changing the rule (law, even?) about donations. Only allow d
ations up to $200, only one and only from registered voters.

I would not mind that. I think only the persons who want to get rich
running for office, and the persons who want to pay for favors, would not
want some type of campaign/donation reform. I think that would cut out
your career politicians even quicker than term limits would. Since
Congress is full of those career politicians, who don't want the gravy
train cut off, I doubt there is much of a chance there.


* SLMR 2.1a * A distant ship, smoke on the horizon....
--- SBBSecho 3.12-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

Since
Congress is full of those career politicians, who don't want the gravy train cut off, I doubt there is much of a chance there.

Sigh. Yes indeed. That and many other reforms, that the US people want, probably can never be achieved without violence. Too many lawmakers will keep on desperately fighting for their lucrative Status Quo.

I honestly wish that this wasn't so. Ever since I used to work in the US (for a total of around 12 months) in the 1980s, I've loved the US people and it's generosity and ingenuity. Unfortunately that love affair ended with GWB and his Patriot Acts and various Big Lies (such as that about Saddam's WoMD).



..
--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; sv-SE; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20101125
* Origin: news://eljaco.se:4119 (2:203/2)

Hello Bj”rn,

Since
Congress is full of those career politicians, who don't want the

gravy

train cut off, I doubt there is much of a chance there.

Sigh. Yes indeed. That and many other reforms, that the US people want, probably can never be achieved without violence. Too many lawmakers will keep on desperately fighting for their lucrative Status Quo.

The first rule of politicians is to get elected. The second rule of
politicians is to get re-elected. So you really cannot blame any of
them on "desperately fighting for their lucrative Status Quo."

I honestly wish that this wasn't so. Ever since I used to work in the US
(for a total of around 12 months) in the 1980s, I've loved the US people and it's generosity and ingenuity. Unfortunately that love affair ended with GWB and his Patriot Acts and various Big Lies (such as that about Saddam's WoMD).

GWB is no longer in office, and Saddam Hussein is dead.
And then came Trump. But everything is fine now that Joe
Cool is here.

--Lee

--
Not my president!
--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: news://eljaco.se:4119 (2:203/2)

I do not want to have to work the rest of my life, paying heavier
taxes, so that someone else who is not contributing *by choice* benefits from my employment.

Why would he, who's had the misfortune to fall for all the glory words offered as a way to the "American Dream" and failed, not have to leave his home, while the culprits took your tax money to bail out all the criminals, get free? Yeah...

-- Medicare for all? No thanks, I don't want to pay for other people's health care.

-- I like private insurance, where I pay for other people's health care *AND* for the salaries of bloodsucking middlemen whose entire purpose is telling me *NO* when I need medical care.

-- No way I'll spend 4% of my salary on that socialist crap, I'd rather spend 20% of my salary on a *free choice* private, but non-socialist shit.

You can call that selfish, but I call it practical. I want to enjoy my old
age, not die working.

I can assure you, it's been more than a century since the last worker in a Nordic country died working. We all enjoy our retirement funds, administered by our government, and thusly protected from any Wall Street, money-grabbing, criminal (and yet unpunished) action. YMMV



..
--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; sv-SE; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20101125
* Origin: news://eljaco.se:4119 (2:203/2)