Ricky:

ray

Ricky, Sweden is different. I haven't said it is better; I haven't said it is worse.

I have said that Sweden has a lower poverty rate than the USA. 6.4% versus 15% And its backed up with a source.
Unless you want to argue that poverty is a good thing...whats your point?

My point is that when you accuse me of saying that America is exceptional, you are lying. When you say that I am arguing that poverty is a good thing, you are lying again. You are fundamentally a dishonest person. And I have no doubt that your retort to this will be dishonest too.

ray

My point is that when you accuse me of saying that America is exceptional,

Did I accuse you of that? Here's what I wrote....

In the end, you've gone beyond my alternatives anyway .... how flexible of you and you've decided that "culture and history" could be alternative answers to why Sweden has managed to limit poverty so much more effectively than the US..., though without any evidence of how... so I'll wait to see how you explain that.
(I always thought that was what American Exceptionalism embodied...a history and culture that uniquely provided the USA with advantages .... Are you now suggesting that Swedish Exceptionalism is a flavour better?

)

I think you are suffering from cognizant dissonance and an inability to argue rationally.
And instead of offering substantive argumentation, you resort to basless slander.
Either that or an inability to admit you got nothing. to argue with... Usually thats when Fate starts to slag people.

Ricky, you haven't convinced me that the US can just do what Sweden does and be successful. Just because it works in a country with less than 10 million people is no guarantee that it will work in a country of our size. As you increase the size and diversity of a population, there is less trust in the system. There is less guarantee that what makes sense to those designing the system will make sense to those who are benefiting from it.

Culture, demographics, institutional history, and national character matter. Why does it work in the Nordic countries, but not in France or Spain or Portugal or Greece? Okay, Spain, Portugal and Greece are very different. But you never answered my question about France. I guess you got nothing so you resort to slander? Why does India advance while Pakistan goes backwards? Why does China advance rapidly relative to Russia? Why does Germany excel (until recently) while Japan languishes?

Programs that work in Massachusetts don't necessarily work in Mississippi. People in Texas don't want universal health insurance. If poverty rates are the sole criteria, take a look at New Hampshire. Last I looked, their rate is less than 6%. Why don't the rest of the states imitate New Hampshire. Based on your simplistic analysis, we should all eliminate our sales and personal income taxes and our poverty rates would go down. It works for New Hampshire; why wouldn't it work for California?

I don't care how many times you mention Sweden. It doesn't prove that the US can rid itself of poverty by emulating its policies any more than I can prove that California can eliminate poverty by emulating New Hampshire's tax structure. Don't even get me started about the low unemployment rate in North Dakota. Why doesn't Sweden allow fracking?

Furthermore, I've already said that poverty is undesirable, so when you say

"Unless you want to argue that poverty is a good thing...whats your point?"

you are either intentionally slandering, being disingenuous, or being stupid. Which is it?

Can I vote?

bbauska wrote:Can I vote?

Poll option!!!

France I ignored because you obviously know nothing about the rate of poverty in France. It’s as low as Sweden.

Poverty in France has fallen by 60% over thirty years. Although it affected 15% of the population in 1970, in 2001 only 6.1% (or 3.7 million people) were below the poverty line (which, according to INSEE's criteria, is half of the median income).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_France
ray

Why does India advance while Pakistan goes backwards? Why does China advance rapidly relative to Russia? Why does Germany excel (until recently) while Japan languishes?

In all cases I’d say that the leaders of the countries have chosen policies and programs that benefit most people, rather than a small elite group. Its the position of a book called "Why Nations Fail", that is worth reading...
But we are talking specifically about the eradication of poverty …. So a much generalized comment like this is vague.I think only first world countries can be legitimately brought into ths comparison...
The first thing you should consider is the GDP per capita of all of the countries listed. All have GDP per capita less than the US. And yet the first world nations you’ve noted, Japan and Germany also join France and have lower rates of poverty than the US. So there’s less wealth to spread around …and yet all these nations manage to get there.
If I were a US State I would look at whatever New Hampshire is doing. It does have the lowest poverty rate in the US but it’s more than 6% (6.6%) http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/2 ... ?page=full
ray

I don't care how many times you mention Sweden. It doesn't prove that the US can rid itself of poverty by emulating its policies

…
When companies seek to improve their business performance they look around at successful companies and they emulate the best practices … They don’t say, “oh it could never work here…" they work to change the culture of the company and educate the employees and management … And it almost always pays off.
It is the same when nations look for practices that work. Thats why third world nations look at the institutions of western nations for examples of what works in governance...
The idea that “it could never work here” because we are different, begs the question. How are you genuinely different? And especially what is the significant difference that stops you from employing proven successful strategies to eliminate poverty?
I don’t think Americans are uniquely incapable of solving the problem of poverty because of any cultural or ethnic reason. It certainly can’t be overall need as the US still has the highest per capita GDP in the world. (Or at least top 3) And it certainly can't be antiethical since poverty rates in the Us - when attacked by Lyndon Johnson dropped from nearly 20% to 11.1% in 74.
But if you can offer a genuine characteristic that hand cuffs your nation in this pursuit , I’m all ears…
Or offer the reason why rates of poverty grew from 74 to today so much. What changed?

We're not socialists. So, there's that.

Ricky:

France I ignored because you obviously know nothing about the rate of poverty in France. It’s as low as Sweden.

Poverty in France has fallen by 60% over thirty years. Although it affected 15% of the population in 1970, in 2001 only 6.1% (or 3.7 million people) were below the poverty line (which, according to INSEE's criteria, is half of the median income).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_France

Ricky, thank you for imparting your deep knowledge of France for the entire Redscape community. Using Wikipedia with its statistics from 2001 has shown your superiority on the subject.

By the way, you do have to be careful when comparing poverty statistics across nations as each country defines its poverty level. According to this source, http://rivieratimes.com/index.php/prove ... rance.html, the poverty threshold is 10,400 Euros, and 13.5% of the French are below it. According to Wikipedia, the US poverty rate is 15.1% at a threshold of $23,000. Also from Wikipedia (under US poverty):

The poverty level in the United States, with 12.65% (39.1 million people in poverty, of a total of 309 million) is comparable to the one in France, where 14% of the population live with less than 880 euros per month.[19][20]

Ricky:

If I were a US State I would look at whatever New Hampshire is doing.

Good. You would find that they are basically doing the opposite of Sweden. Now what?

3) And it certainly can't be antiethical [antiethical? -- that's pretty funny] since poverty rates in the Us - when attacked by Lyndon Johnson dropped from nearly 20% to 11.1% in 74.

We had a good economy in the 50's and 60's. I suspect that social security made a big difference too.

Or offer the reason why rates of poverty grew from 74 to today so much. What changed?

You are cherry picking the data an embarrassing amount (or at least you should be embarrassed). The poverty rate stayed low through 1999, but has increased since then. The economy has been bad, or haven't you noticed?

ray

By the way, you do have to be careful when comparing poverty statistics across nations as each country defines its poverty level

.
Granted. (And I'll grant also that france's poverty rate is higher today but then the poverty level is france is high whilst the price of very good wine is very low.)
Will you admit that the relative GDP per capita is a factor worth considering too?

A poor person in Sweden (or france, or germany) has complete medical coverage, and their children have free access to higher education. If they have a job they have lavish unemployment benefits if they loose their job, and if they are long term unemployed there are many programs to train, or if they are physical or mentally challenged there s social support.
A poor person in the US, say Mississppi, has some of this, the benefits are usually a lot less generous and there are fewer programs for help.

ray

Good. You would find that they are basically doing the opposite of Swedenhttp

You think? So there is no mandated coverage in health insurance, or unemployment benefits or welfare programs in new Hampshire> Because that would be "opposite".
Opposite would be Somalia... or maybe Viet Nam? A place with no social programs of any kind to advance the plight of the poor or the welfare of all.
And I find New Hampshire has things like "manadated insurance". (coverage that MUST be included for insurance coverage to be sold in the state.)
://www.nh.gov/insurance/consumers/health.htm

ray

The poverty rate stayed low through 1999, but has increased since then. The economy has been bad, or haven't you noticed?

The poverty rate was lowest in 74. And yes it did climb in the period from 99 onward. The economy wasn't bad the whole decade, only after the crash of 08.
Moreover, as the rate of poverty increased, the share of wealth and income amongst the top 1% grew enormously.
Maybe you're on to something here ray.

fate

We're not socialists. So, there's that

But you are. Just not efficient socialists. Or as effective. (Perhaps because you want to pretend you aren't.)
You have universal health care access but you choose to guarantee that access through emergency wards. And the private system of health insurance is inefficient and ineffective making raw health care costs higher than anywhere in the first world. For no discernable difference in quality versus nations where health care is almost half per capita.
You have Medicare, Medicaid and veterans benefits.
You have unemployment insurance and welfare programs.
You have State Universities...

The question isn't are you or are you not socialists?...
The question is why the American commitment to socialism has not been adequate to limit poverty to the rate of a small, poorer nation like Sweden?
Its why looking at it from a business point of view , an examination of best practices, is worth doing...
For instance: Why saddle businesses with the necessity of covering employees health care insurance, when a central system of insurance would be vastly more efficent AND improve the mobility (freedom) of citizens to move employment? These are huge advantages that other nations provide both their industry and their citizens...whilst delivering the service more efficiently.
From what i've seen americans have the knack of solving their problems in the most complex ways possible. Except when they run businesses.
But business have such an outsized influence on public policy that they use their influence to ensure they gain disproportionally from whatever government intiative is taken. (See medicare and the health service providers...)
And, to Purples original point, the cost of the military is a burden, who's reduction could be used enrich ordinary people. And which could easily be reduced without signicant effect to the ability of the military to serve its original intended purpose and very little to the ability of the nation to "project power" effectively.

To rickyp,

My most sincere thanks! You are doing more to move RJ to the right than I, or any army, could ever do.

Grateful,

Doctor Fate

rickyp wrote:fate

We're not socialists. So, there's that

But you are. Just not efficient socialists. Or as effective. (Perhaps because you want to pretend you aren't.)
. . .
The question isn't are you or are you not socialists?...

Thank you again for your self-refuting non-clarity.

Here, let me make it easy for you: if President Obama said, "The problem is that we are not efficient in our socialism. What we need to do is find better ways to distribute our wealth so that we can reduce poverty to the levels in Sweden," what percentage of the vote would he get?

An honest answer to that will give you some idea as to why we are NOT socialists.

Doctor Fate wrote:To rickyp,

My most sincere thanks! You are doing more to move RJ to the right than I, or any army, could ever do.

Grateful,

Doctor Fate

too funny, and too true ...

fate

An honest answer to that will give you some idea as to why we are NOT socialists

Why you THINK you are not socialists...
Represented by the same kinds of people heard saying "Keep your government hands off my medicare".

What kind of support would Romney get if he said, We must end all forms of socialism so we must end medicare!"There are elements of socialism in your nation. If, to get elected, politicians have to pander to the intellectually challenged who can't admit socialism when they encounter it .... thats just the world you live in...

rickyp wrote:fate

An honest answer to that will give you some idea as to why we are NOT socialists

Why you THINK you are not socialists...
Represented by the same kinds of people heard saying "Keep your government hands off my medicare".

What kind of support would Romney get if he said, We must end all forms of socialism so we must end medicare!"There are elements of socialism in your nation. If, to get elected, politicians have to pander to the intellectually challenged who can't admit socialism when they encounter it .... thats just the world you live in...

Okay, so you're saying FDR, LBJ and Barack Obama are socialists. After all, they put together the biggest entitlement programs in history. Okay, fine.

Getting rid of Medicare and Social Security is not needed. We are fine with a safety net, particularly for our seniors.

However, that was a nice dodge. You know that would end the President's reelection. Now, if you want Romney to run as the anti-socialist candidate, I'm fine with that--as long as Obama proclaims his socialism first.

Romney can run against socialism, generically. Obama cannot run in favor of it. It's the word that matters. You are either too dumb to fathom that or too dishonest to acknowledge that. Which is it?

I will anxiously await your dishonest non-answer.