But the porblem with Sweden is that it's a socialist state, and that's not good.

What is a socialist state? In some areas, the U.S. is more "socialist" than Sweden.

I'm no fan of the current party in power, but they did preside over 40 years of vastly increased corporate profits, and this was by good policy, not by accident.

It's not really possible to compare fairly parties in different countries, but the Swedish Social Democrats are to the right of U.S. Democrats in a number of areas.

They are even to the right of the U.S. Republican party in several areas, including a whole bunch of successful privatizations that nobody here has had the balls to even propose.

Healthcare exists both as "free" taxpayer-funded care and as totally private doctors and hospitals for those who want to pay more.

Btw, corporate taxes in Sweden are the second lowest in Europe (behind only Ireland), and those corporate taxes are way lower than here in the U.S.

Recently, maybe a few months ago, I read a news item that said Sweden's social system was beginning to falter.

There is some truth to this, just like it is in most other European countries, primarily due to spiraling healthcare costs.

We are just seeing the beginning of exactly the same crisis here, with families having to give up a huge amount of their monthly paycheck just to cover their health insurance.

Coursedesign, You wrote:
"The only thing that scares The Phone Company right now is Google buying up as much dark fiber as they can nationwide, with the intent of "bypassing" The Phone Company over the air in the same way MCI (originally known as Microwave Communications, Inc.) did it in the 1980s."

Guess where Lucent's Bell Labs brightest scientists have gone to work for the past few years? Google got most of the brightest. I have great respect for what Bell Labs has done in history, however, my resources say the people left and the corporate support has resulted in a shadow of what they once were.

I think Google's culture towards their staff has created the 21st century's version of Bell Labs.

And no, I am not an investor or an employee, nor a competitor.

I didn't realise that online banking is not almost universal nowadays. I've used it for several years without hiccups - I pay all my bills this way and many of my clients pay directly into my bank account.

Scenario 1.
My client receives my invoice.
They draw up a requisition to pay.
This has to be authorised by someone else.
A cheque is drawn up.
This has to be signed, often by two people.
It has to be put in an envelope.
The envelope is stamped and posted.
The postal people process and eventually deliver it.
I open it, write out a paying in slip, drive to the bank and pay it in.
It clears in three days.

Scenario 2.
Client receives my invoice.
Payment is authorised.
An online transfer is processed, putting the money in my account.
It clears immediately.

Which makes more sense?

I've been doing online banking for so long, I forgot how to write a check. When I needed a physical check (for a local government fee, no less), the most recent check entry in my check book was a year old. For the same fee to the same agency.

The great irony is that I am in Silicon Valley, and San Jose is one of the most internet-phobic governments in the country.

Steve Mann

Ah, good ol' online banking.

Pay a bill? Easy. And that'll be a $1 transaction fee, please.

Send a check? No extra charge (except the $0.39 stamp, of course).

Completely backwards.

"Send a check? No extra charge" - You think? Ah bless!

Grazie

What is a socialist state?

The "State" takes money, by force, from one person who earned it and gives it to another person who didn't earn it. Basically, it's nothing more than "legal plunder."

In some areas, the U.S. is more "socialist" than Sweden.

This is true! Still, I cannot condone socialism in any of it's forms, regardless of who is plying it. Socialism denies men the right to fully use what is legally and lawfully theirs.

We are just seeing the beginning of exactly the same crisis here, with families having to give up a huge amount of their monthly paycheck just to cover their health insurance.

Yes, it's simply another "tax" (that form of legal plunder) that is sapping the life out of the individual citizen in this country. It's the same "greed" factor is at the heart of it, the same greed factor that drives large corporations, like AT&T, to do what's happening in the article mentioned above in this thread. And we, the end users, are the ones who are going to wind up paying for it and suffering the most!

"Unfortunately, our Republican party has been the biggest proponent of media mergers because we have realized since Ronald Reagan that controlling the flow of information can make us rich and powerful. "
-----
"You must have been totally asleep during the Clinton administration. Remember Exxon and Mobile?"
===============
Thanks John. You learn something new every day. I never realized that in addition to beng oil companies Exxon and Mobil were also MEDIA companies???

In terms of why mergers and reduced competition are (in your opinion) beneficial, the others are doing a good job blowing that falacy to shreds so I'll concentrate on the rest:

Your notion that we ARE well informed and that Europeans and the rest of the world doesn't like our government because they are simply "envious" of us is typical of the rot I hear not only at Republican party meetings but also on the networks such as Fox News from the likes of Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity. And to somehow justify the self-centered decisions over the years by our governments that have adversely affected other countries by stating or implying that people in those countries don't really want to live there, but would rather live here is rather pompus.
I hate to inform you that many people in other countries love their countries just as much as many Americans love theirs. Many don't like that the United Nations is bullied by an abuse of permanent veto power that the US holds over them. They also love their countries and resent that issues they deem important like Global Warming cannot be dealt with because the United States refuses to put any restrictions on large industry and uses the media to convey misinformation to the public here to put doubt into the minds of Americans as to it's importance.

Nor did what I stated even suggest that in the United States "everyone is stupid". Those are words you injected into what I stated. Americans are ill informed by the media. The average individual doesn't have time to investigate everything they hear. They come home from work and catch the news. The public thinks that some are lying and others are not because the presentation is a little different. The CONTENT is what is a lie when it comes to promoting the Bush administration (last year because he was up for re-election )or our (R) party which is up for re-election this year. It is the false analogies and political "analysis" that don't seem to vary much. It is the concentration of the typical "guest" that doesn't vary much".
The very notion that Republicans are "conservative" and Democrats are "liberal" and that each thinks a certain way has been taught to the public by the media. When I tell people I am a Republican and a conservative some people (You for one have stated it in the past ) think I am lying. Why? Because I don't fit the profile the media has helped create. I have been a Republican Conservative all my life (I'm sixty). Our party decided to change the definition of a "liberal" to those who don't go along with what the party is selling the public. The media has helped our party do that. To those who dig for the truth because they don't just accept what is told to them would have to equate the term "conservative" with "lair". I resent that.
Expressions like "to the Right of" and "most liberal" are equally false. I dislike what our Republican party has become because we engage in lying to the public. Listening to Ken Mehlman's (part chairman) memos at the beginning of the party meetings is repulsive. Although I catch a lot of flack for my opinions I am not alone and our numbers are growing. But we never get a voice by the media. We get as little voice as the Democrats do.

========

"Predictions of gloom and doom are not just annoying, they are just plain wrong. Lighten up, and enjoy your life a little more."

=============
That is exactly the line our Republican party uses to try to negate dissenting opinion. I would challenge you to find any post of mine that sounds "emotional". In contrast one of the times your arguments were challenged your reaction when you were losing this very same same argument regarding the media to BusterKeaton and myself was:

"I give up. There is no point debating with people who take any point with which they disagree, and assume that it must be the product of lying ("Bush lied, kids died"). To assume that virtually everything that Bush or his administration does is lying is the equivalent of a child on a playground who loses an argument and is reduced to yelling, "your mother wears army boots" ...). For me, the final straw is to state that "I can support what I allege, you cannot." It is not just the fact that this is insulting, or that it has the same tone of the schoolyard insult, that makes me give up. Instead, since I provide links and citations for everything I post, making such a statement is prima facie evidence of a mind that isn't understanding what it sees. Almost by definition, irrationality cannot be a party to debate, and therefore I choose to quit.'

Kind of "pouty" John, don't you think?

Other examples of threads where this "fantasy" about the media was illustrated by endless documented examples was here and here. You lost this argument in those threads as well.

If you need yet MORE specific detailed examples of what the American media is up to pick the topic and I'll do it again.

Respectfully.
John

Ah, good ol' online banking. Pay a bill? Easy. And that'll be a $1 transaction fee, please.

Which bank do you use that charges a transaction fee for online bill payments? Mine doesn't, and I don't know of anyone that does.

The banks would love to get rid of the very expensive check handling business (do you have a free checking account, or do you have to pay a monthly fee to cover the handling of checks in addition to the money they make on the float?).

Jay,

I'm scratching my head trying to understand what kind of nation would satisfy you.

I'm guessing you'd like to have roads to drive from A to B, perhaps with bill eaters at every freeway entrance, and a coin slot at every red light in town to allow passage to the next red light.

And no defense, because I don't see how you could have a coin-operated defense, other than each man for himself.

And you would trust the competition between airlines to ensure that they do sufficient maintenance. Ditto for mines, trusting that they couldn't get any workers if they didn't have reasonable safe guards.

Hmmm, I'm getting a sense of deja vu here. Wasn't there an absence of regulation in a highly competitive environment during the Industrial Revolution? How was it?

Ummm......


The increase in health care expenditures is greed driven to a large part, but that's not the only reason.

All the lucre has led to the development of an enormous number of new kinds of very expensive health treatments, and ways to extend the life of cancer patients by a few months.

One of the new cancer drugs will set you back $20,000. But only if you're not one of the 47 million Americans without any form of health insurance, because then it would be over $100,000.

The $20,000 is just for the co-pay.

The manufacturer says, "it's expensive, but you don't have to buy it if you don't want."

That is true, and we're gonna have to put more work into HOW we value life. Is it worth say $250,000 to get four more months at the end of life?

If you don't agree with the manufacturer, read this news item.

(two typos fixed).

Bjorn, you misunderstood what I was saying. I'm talking about "social" taxes. Building roads and national defense are not socialist items. National health care is. Welfare is. Simply put, there is nothing redeeming whatsoever about socialism in any form. It's one step removed from communism.

If you'd like to see what kind nation would satisfy me, and to save space and bandwidith here, go lp.org and read what they have to say insofar as taxes are concerned. That would satisfy me immensely.*

The truth is that Americans pay $.56 out of every dollar they earn in some form of "tax," and it comes in many forms, under many disguises! That's absurd. And it continues to grow each and every year.

My question to the politicians is: "When will you have enough? What figure of what we earn will be enough for you corrupt scoundrels to run the government?"

Ask a politician that and see what kind of reply you get. ;o)

*Here's another link that goes into greater detail.

Politicians used to be lawyers. They have years of education in "spin", "moral degenerational algorithims", and how to increase taxes without anyone knowing. The Declaration of Independence shall be changed from "We the people" to "We the corporations" to reflect the true powers that be in the USA.

JJK

... "moral degenerational algorithims"...

LOL -- That's priceless!

Thanks for a good laugh!!!

If you'd like to see what kind nation would satisfy me, and to save space and bandwidith here, go lp.org and read what they have to say insofar as taxes are concerned. That would satisfy me immensely.*

The truth is that Americans pay $.56 out of every dollar they earn in some form of "tax," and it comes in many forms, under many disguises! That's absurd. And it continues to grow each and every year.
============
One of the faults of the Libertarian party is the same fault that our (R) party is guilty of. Blaming the wasting of tax dollars on social programs. That notion is fueled by the media that misrepresents the facts for our benefit and enables us to cut programs under the guise of cutting tax wastefullness.

The Republican tax-cut package far exceeded recent spending cuts. The AP, Wall Street Journal, Fox News, USA Today, and scores of others helped foster this notion. The term "relatively modest" spending cuts was used more often than not while not mentioning or emphasizing the impact of the tax cuts the Bush administration and the Republican party have twice railroaded through since Bush took office and now want to make permanent. The media plays UP the siginificance of these costs and plays DOWN the record budget deficits created by the tax cuts, the Iraq mistake, and Hurricane Katrina. Even some of their own polls are presented as a lie to the public. For example:
Citing a CNN/USA Gallup poll question:

"If you had to choose, which of the following would you say would be the best way for the government to pay for the problems caused by Hurricane Katrina: increase the federal budget deficit, raise taxes, cut spending for the war in Iraq, or cut spending for domestic programs such as education and health care?"
Cut Iraq Spending - 54%, Raise Taxes - 17%, Increase Deficit - 15%, Cut Domestic Spending - 6%, Unsure /Other - 8%
the media began employing the rhetoric that our Republican party uses by claiming that the Democrats propose "raising taxes" to deal with Katrina when in fact they proped not extending the tax cuts past the expiration date. None of the mainstream media reported that to my knowledge. They simple used the poll to falsely imply that Democrats want to raise people's taxes to deal with Katrina and that the public doesn't like that idea. Pack of liars.

Even the Washington Post has often ignored $60-$70 million in tax cuts to bolster the false notion that the Republicans are keeping the Democrats in check by imposing "fiscal discipline". How many times have the Republican majority used their majority to raise the cap on the budget deficit? Three times so far? From a balanced budget to record deficits in 5 short years.
Yet some people will fall for their ploy that entitlement programs (not huge tax cuts in a time of war no less) are to blame.
Libertarians support smaller government and Republicans used to as well. Not any more. This crop has the most government intervention schemes of any in my lifetime. Cuts to the states along with false funding promises to match funds while being saddled with federal mandates such as No Child Left Behind have left states without the state budgets to provide state aid to local districts who in turn have raised taxes. In my district it was 17% last year and 18% the year before. In some local communities it has been as high as 24%. Does the media blame the Bush administration for the trickle down tax burden? No. They blame the states, the teachers, etc. Not the federal government that has caused the largest tax increases I can remember by their cuts in funding to the states.

Same thing with the fake committee investigating Katrina. The cuts in funding to deal with construction projects to avoid such disasters by the Republicans and the Bush administration aren't being considered. Why would they investigate "themselves"?
That is why the Democrats wanted an independent investigation which our party stonewalled. The so-called "bipartisan committee" was reported by virtually all the media as being one in which the Democrats refused to participate in because they felt "it would be a whitewash".
When the first report from the fake committee came out the media reported it as "harsh" toward Bush and the opposite of what the Democrats said it would be.
A joke. It went along with the ploy to shift blame on the local officials as I predicted it would and use FEMA head Brown as the one single scapegoat responsible for all the failures on the federal level. I predicted that in this thread
in which I laid out the details of what was going on and documentatioj to back it up. I also cited that the real reason the Democrats refused to participate with our party in this so-called investigation was because:

1. Democrats would be unequal in representation
2. Only Republicans would have access to certain records
3. Only Republicans would be allowed subpoena power for witnesses
4. Only Republicans would be allowed to write proposed legislation

I haven't once seen any major media outlet report those reasons for their refusal to participate. The only reason I know is because C-Span covered their objections. CNN, NBC, ABC, Fox, etc still lie about the reasons. The public doesn't know.

John

John, forgive me, but I'm not following your point(s) here. George Bush has out democrated the democrats. He spent more in 4 years than Bill Clinton did in eight! He, a republican, has grown the size of government far more than any democrat in recent history--certainly in my life time! I am ashamed to admit that I voted for him, first time around. But I didn't the second time!

Why do you blame the libertarians for what George Bush has done?

Social programs are a waste of tax dollars! Why should anyone dip into your pocket, take your hard-earned money, and give it to someone who refuses to work? What's fair or equitable about that? Welfare has fixed absolutely nothing. It's had its chance. It simply does't work, and throwing more money at it will not fix it.

There is nothing defensible about either the republican or democratic parties. Every ill, every problem that this Nation has experienced over the past 100 years can be placed at the doorstep of both of these parties. They've done absolutely nothing. There have been no improvements. Nothing has been "fixed."

Socialism has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

Unless I totally misunderstood what you were saying, you sound like a socialist. Am I correct in that presumption?

John Craftech,

You make some very good points (as usual).

It again shows that there is nobody home in the Democratic Party.

Nobody there with the street fighting skills necessary to take on the asphalt jungle's most savvy street fighters in history.

I think the responsibility for change rests with the now more significant number of Republican congress critters who are beginning to smell blood, and its their own this time.

They see the immense risk to their reelection prospects of being associated with what some serious scientific researchers think may be the worst administration in the history of this country.

The State Department just issued their Annual Worldwide Human Rights Report, including of course mentioning China's ugly stuff.

China responded immediately, "Hey, that's nothing, the U.S. human rights situation is much worse." And they were specific about the jail torture, "renditions" (shipping illegally kidnapped foreign citizens to other countries for torture to give those countries the blame if found out), unlimited detentions of people without proven cause, racial discrimination, warrantless domestic spying, etc, and they are saying in effect, "we're not perfect, but we're at least as good as the U.S."

Perhaps the U.S. should be taken off the new UN human rights committe for the same reason our dear government friends (defined as somebody with oil) in Sudan were manipulated out because of what they did and still do in Darfur?

John, forgive me, but I'm not following your point(s) here. George Bush has out democrated the democrats. He spent more in 4 years than Bill Clinton did in eight! He, a republican, has grown the size of government far more than any democrat in recent history--certainly in my life time! I am ashamed to admit that I voted for him, first time around. But I didn't the second time!

======
I agree
======
Why do you blame the libertarians for what George Bush has done?

Social programs are a waste of tax dollars! Why should anyone dip into your pocket, take your hard-earned money, and give it to someone who refuses to work? What's fair or equitable about that? Welfare has fixed absolutely nothing. It's had its chance. It simply does't work, and throwing more money at it will not fix it.
===========
I agree.
However, I disagree as I outlined above regarding those programs being the MAIN problem as both Republicans and Libertarians would have you believe.
==========

Unless I totally misunderstood what you were saying, you sound like a socialist. Am I correct in that presumption?
=======
No. The term has been distorted beyond it's original meaning the same way the term "liberal" has.

John

Service Credit Union right now.

And no fee checking, unless I let the balance drop too far. :)

It again shows that there is nobody home in the Democratic Party.
========
That is the media talking. They don't cover the Democrats and their proposals as I keep illustrating. When they do it is by misreporting what they say and/or demonizing them. I can't tell you how many times people like Chris Matthews on MSNBC or Wolf Blitzer and the political analyists on CNN amongst others have said:
"With all these negative things happening in the Republican Party the Democrats have not been able to capitalize on it".
Repeat a falsehood often enough and it sinks home. Of course they can't capitalize on it. The media doesn't cover them or misrepresents what they are saying. That is how Bush won in 2004 and it is how we in the Republican party will keep the majority this year. The Republican rhetoric will increase as elections draw closer and the media will give it credibility and we will win again thanks to the media just like I correctly predicted it would happen in the Spring of 2004 when it came to the Bush administration's lies. The Abramoff scandal is a classic example. How many people think that the Democrats are just as guilty as the Republicans when it comes to that issue? Another example of the bed sharing between the media and our Republican party.

John

The term has been distorted beyond it's original meaning the same way the term "liberal" has.

..and ditto for the term "conservative."

The current Republican Party does not have conservative values, and we're all the worse off for it.

Our trade deficit last year hit three quarter of a Trillion Dollars, this was commented on by saying "it's proof we're doing well."

I'd say it's proof other countries are still willing to give us credit.

When they decide to collect that debt, plus the trade deficit-related debt from previous years, plus the huge sums of money the U.S. Government has borrowed from foreigners to cover our budget deficits, this country may end up saying what the skeleton said to the Ex-Lax, "You ain't getting anything more out of me."

Shakespeare relates how Denmark had to file for bankruptcy a long time ago, what makes us think we are immune now? Size isn't always strength (especially not when a country like Iran says, "Stick'em up and accept what we want, or we'll raise oil prices!").

The term has been distorted beyond it's original meaning the same way the term "liberal" has.

..and ditto for the term "conservative."

The current Republican Party does not have conservative values, and we're all the worse off for it.

Our trade deficit last year hit three quarter of a Trillion Dollars, this was commented on by saying "it's proof we're doing well."

I'd say it's proof other countries are still willing to give us credit.

When they decide to collect that debt, plus the trade deficit-related debt from previous years, plus the huge sums of money the U.S. Government has borrowed from foreigners to cover our budget deficits, this country may end up saying what the skeleton said to the Ex-Lax, "You ain't getting anything more out of me."
==========
Most of it is owned by foreign powers including Iran and the country we knock the most, China that owns, I believe, the largest share of the debt.
When people repeat these terms like Conservative and Socialist they ought to stop and think about why the terms don't match the dictionary versions...............the media (our number one problem in the United States).

John

Of course they can't capitalize on it. The media doesn't cover them or misrepresents what they are saying.

There are ways to force issues to be put on the table.

I have successfully taught this for years in a court context, and I'm almost wondering if I should develop a course for politicians.

OTOH, anybody who wants to learn how to manipulate the media could just watch old file tapes of Bush appearances as scripted by King George's Evil Advisor, those are mastery in action.