Socialism is self interest (Capitalism )

[Captain Oates 911]

Hey, not to change the subject but how is your son doing? That was quite an interesting story about his bad habits and poor attitude. Have you heard from him in the last couple months?

Hey thanks for your concern...

It's nice to be part of a community

I am afraid he is down the same path as Charlie Sheen which makes me feel at one with Martin

I am cool with the situation and I reckon Martin is too.....

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

You have no clue, do you?

If you're using medicare and SS as shining examples, you don't know ANYTHING about either program than and their failures.

Why do you always have to insult people by implying they are clueless or stupid or whatever?

[The Dude 206]

Why do you always have to insult people by implying they are clueless or stupid or whatever?

Some people lack the capacity or education to intelligently express themselves.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Some people lack the capacity or education to intelligently express themselves.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Why do you always have to insult people by implying they are clueless or stupid or whatever?

disprove what i say after, then we'll talk.

[The Dude 206]

I don't have any trouble expressing myself Paul, nor am I the one who suggests eugenics as a solution to societal problems. Education is a valuable tool Paul.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Compare A) the amount of money that was spent shoring up the banks, and B) the UK's national debt.

The article quoted above was fairly clear, though:

Official figures, from the Office for National Statistics, show the total public sector debt is estimated to be £876 billion, equal to £33,100 per household.

If the debt from the banks rescued by the State is included, the figure balloons to £2,252 billion, according to the ONS.

Debt w/o banks bail-out: 876 bn

Debt w/ banks bail-out: 2,252 bn

Debt from banks bail-out: 1,376 bn

1,376 > 876

[Captain Oates 911]

The article quoted above was fairly clear, though:

Debt w/o banks bail-out: 876 bn

Debt w/ banks bail-out: 2,252 bn

Debt from banks bail-out: 1,376 bn

1,376 > 876

In 2008 I had 2 banks - Washington Mutual and Halifax PLC in the UK

They both went bust at the same time proving to me that different political sytems are no protection against adverse moves

I didn't lose a penny because of either bank - proving that socialistic practices are common between the two governments

Perhaps they are not that different after all

All the raging righties in Washington State (East of the Cascades) were glad of that socialistic protection when their banks went pop

My point though, is that some socialism is actually more efficient at producing desirable things like roads and sewers and health care. Pooling one's resources benefits everyone in many instances. The only question is whether that pooling is best done by government or private industry. Private industry has more incentive to do the job cheaper but does so by dropping services to individuals and reducing services to increase profit. As long as you are not the individual being dropped and you can afford it, then private is fine - especially if the company pays.

However, the cost is built into the product and then the production goes to another country - and - worse - you might be the individual cut out of the pack and denied treatment etc

Let's keep it simple - socialised health care costs 50% of American style health care. That difference may well get to you personally either by your employer folding under the weight, or you personally taking the cost. Therefore I rate it inefficient.

That makes no reference to the morality of cutting an individual loose to die in the gutter, as many right wingers would shrug and say "tough". The economic argument stands on it's own with no reference to that morality question which is irrelevant to many in the USA in any case

[mawilson 2,133]

The article quoted above was fairly clear, though:

Debt w/o banks bail-out: 876 bn

Debt w/ banks bail-out: 2,252 bn

Debt from banks bail-out: 1,376 bn

1,376 > 876

That number is a little suspect - it probably includes things like loan

guarantees and bank assets insured by the government.

How much money was actually "given" to the banks? £200bn in liquidity

support, and about £40bn in loans and other funding. And the government

also bought £76bn of shares in RBS and Lloyds.

It's not a lot - and the government will get it all back, with interest,

just like we did with TARP.