basskisser wrote:
JimH wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
JimH wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
Don White wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
Jack Goff wrote:

The separation between yourself and Jack Goff (childish
namecalling
and all...) is immense. I'm superior in every way. I even live
in a
superior country. I'm sorry for you, Don. :-)
Don't know why you run from your nickname, Jackoff. It suits you
to a tee.
Jackoff should stick with what he does best.
The United Nations lists Canada as one of the best 3 or 4 places in
the
world to live year after year.
The US is down in the dumper on most serious places ratings surveys.
Such as?
Here's one. There are several about:

http://www.economist.com/theworldin/...3372495&d=2005
ROTF! The Economist? Nothing more than a European rag as obviously
reflected in their ratings.

Absurd. The Economist is one of the most respected publications in the
world. And as I said there are any number such surveys extant. The US no
longer leads the pack in such important areas as democracy, freedom of
the press, lowest infant mortality rates, availability of health care,
et cetera.

Finland, usually, leads the pack of quality nations.


Finland? A socialistic country? This is funny. Tell me more.

Jim, the measurements are concerned with the quality of life for the
majority of people in a country, not the ability of a tiny number of those
people to become multimillionaires. In terms of democracy, freedom of the
press, those others I mentioned and several more criteria, the USA is
nowhere near the top.

I think I mentioned here I have a Norwegian friend, a fellow who was
trained to work as a technician on offshore rigs. He sustained an injury
and was no longer able to work that job. The taxpayers of his country paid
completely for his hospitalization and rehabilitation AND his complete
reeducation at the college level in another field, and while he was
attending college, he and his family received a stipend that covered
expenses. He finished up a couple of years ago, got re-employed at a
professional level, his kids are in college, cost-free to him, the entire
family has medical care AND he has a secure decent retirement.

Now, his take-home is a lot lower than it might be in the United States,
BUT...his out of pocket expenses to maintain a high standard of living for
his family, NO MATTER WHAT, are much lower than they are in this country.

Earlier this week, the US secretary of the treasury said the "economic
recovery in this country is not working for the middle class."

Next.


I do not believe in socialism. I do not believe that people should rely on
the government for their existence or quality of life. The less control the
government has over my life the happier I am.

That's odd, the Bush administration has enacted more laws of control
over you than anyone!


The President and his staff (Executive Branch) do not enact laws Kevin.
Don't you know that?

"JimH" wrote in message
oups.com...

Furthermore, just because the Economist says that the folks in Finland
and other socialist countries believe that have a higher standard of
living does not make it true.


If you need to get beaten up here on a regular basis, why bother typing so
much? Just ask to be beaten up.

There's nothing about the magazine's methods which you are in any position
to question. They explained their methods he
http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/QUALITY_OF_LIFE.pdf

I'm pretty certain you didn't read it.

Hint: "SURVEY"

"JimH" wrote in message
oups.com...

basskisser wrote:
JimH wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
JimH wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
Don White wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
Jack Goff wrote:

The separation between yourself and Jack Goff (childish
namecalling
and all...) is immense. I'm superior in every way. I even
live
in a
superior country. I'm sorry for you, Don. :-)
Don't know why you run from your nickname, Jackoff. It suits
you
to a tee.
Jackoff should stick with what he does best.
The United Nations lists Canada as one of the best 3 or 4
places in
the
world to live year after year.
The US is down in the dumper on most serious places ratings
surveys.
Such as?
Here's one. There are several about:

http://www.economist.com/theworldin/...3372495&d=2005
ROTF! The Economist? Nothing more than a European rag as
obviously
reflected in their ratings.

Absurd. The Economist is one of the most respected publications in
the
world. And as I said there are any number such surveys extant. The
US no
longer leads the pack in such important areas as democracy, freedom
of
the press, lowest infant mortality rates, availability of health
care,
et cetera.

Finland, usually, leads the pack of quality nations.


Finland? A socialistic country? This is funny. Tell me more.

Jim, the measurements are concerned with the quality of life for the
majority of people in a country, not the ability of a tiny number of
those
people to become multimillionaires. In terms of democracy, freedom of
the
press, those others I mentioned and several more criteria, the USA is
nowhere near the top.

I think I mentioned here I have a Norwegian friend, a fellow who was
trained to work as a technician on offshore rigs. He sustained an
injury
and was no longer able to work that job. The taxpayers of his country
paid
completely for his hospitalization and rehabilitation AND his
complete
reeducation at the college level in another field, and while he was
attending college, he and his family received a stipend that covered
expenses. He finished up a couple of years ago, got re-employed at a
professional level, his kids are in college, cost-free to him, the
entire
family has medical care AND he has a secure decent retirement.

Now, his take-home is a lot lower than it might be in the United
States,
BUT...his out of pocket expenses to maintain a high standard of
living for
his family, NO MATTER WHAT, are much lower than they are in this
country.

Earlier this week, the US secretary of the treasury said the
"economic
recovery in this country is not working for the middle class."

Next.


I do not believe in socialism. I do not believe that people should
rely on
the government for their existence or quality of life. The less
control the
government has over my life the happier I am.

That's odd, the Bush administration has enacted more laws of control
over you than anyone!


The President and his staff (Executive Branch) do not enact laws Kevin.
Don't you know that?


Indirectly, he most certainly does.

JimH wrote:
Conversely, just because *you* believe in it does not make it true.


Agreed.

But it's not just me.

Furthermore, just because the Economist says that the folks in Finland
and other socialist countries believe that have a higher standard of
living does not make it true.


Well, there you go.
Man did not fly to the moon either, and nobody can prove
otherwise.


If you studied economics, went there, measured their
standard of living in a way to satisfy yourself, then went
to several other countries to consult with top economists
and measure other things for yourself, your opinion may or
may not change but you'd certainly have a much stronger
basis. You wouldn't be one of those knee-jerk
ignoramo-fascists, either.






... I do not believe that people should rely on
the government for their existence or quality of life.

So don't take what the gov't offers. That is always an option.



I don't take things from the government. I do, however, pay more than
my fair share to it in order to support the dead beats who rely on the
government for their existence.

Really? Did you start out naked in the woods, and make every
single thing you own with your two hands?

You rely on the government for a lot more than you think you do.

DSK

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

JimH wrote:

The US is down in the dumper on most serious places ratings surveys.

Such as?


Here's one. There are several about:

http://www.economist.com/theworldin/...3372495&d=2005


LOL. I have to give you an "A" for effort, Harry.

The US is far from being in the "dumper" and your claim is a bit misleading.
According to the UN Human Development Index (HDI), the US hasn't led or come
close to leading the list since at least 1980 but it's ranking is still up
there with little mathematical score difference between it and the top of
the list. It is interesting that the countries that have led the list over
the years tend to be more socialistic in their government.

Nice try, though. :-)

Eisboch

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

JimH wrote:

The US is down in the dumper on most serious places ratings surveys.

Such as?


Here's one. There are several about:

http://www.economist.com/theworldin/...3372495&d=2005


LOL. I have to give you an "A" for effort, Harry.

The US is far from being in the "dumper" and your claim is a bit
misleading. According to the UN Human Development Index (HDI), the US
hasn't led or come close to leading the list since at least 1980 but it's
ranking is still up there with little mathematical score difference
between it and the top of the list. It is interesting that the countries
that have led the list over the years tend to be more socialistic in their
government.

Nice try, though. :-)

Eisboch


What's even more interesting is that, you being the exception (I think),
most of the people here who depict socialism to be evil have absolutely no
idea what it really is. At least it's entertaining to witness the ideas they
pull outta their asses. :-)

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 10:32:29 -0400, Harry Krause wrote:


I think I mentioned here I have a Norwegian friend, a fellow who was
trained to work as a technician on offshore rigs. He sustained an injury
and was no longer able to work that job. The taxpayers of his country paid
completely for his hospitalization and rehabilitation AND his complete
reeducation at the college level in another field, and while he was
attending college, he and his family received a stipend that covered
expenses. He finished up a couple of years ago, got re-employed at a
professional level, his kids are in college, cost-free to him, the entire
family has medical care AND he has a secure decent retirement.

Now that Norway's oil is past peak, I was wondering if they can sustain
their high standard of living. Perhaps, they will for quite a while. It
seems they haven't been spending their oil windfalls, but saving them for
the future.

http://money.guardian.co.uk/weekly/s...778822,00.html

Imagine that, a country planning for the future. We, on the other hand . . .

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

JimH wrote:
The US is down in the dumper on most serious places ratings surveys.
Such as?

Here's one. There are several about:

http://www.economist.com/theworldin/...3372495&d=2005


LOL. I have to give you an "A" for effort, Harry.

The US is far from being in the "dumper" and your claim is a bit
misleading. According to the UN Human Development Index (HDI), the US
hasn't led or come close to leading the list since at least 1980 but it's
ranking is still up there with little mathematical score difference
between it and the top of the list. It is interesting that the
countries that have led the list over the years tend to be more
socialistic in their government.

Nice try, though. :-)

Eisboch


Last time I looked, the US ranked 10th or 12th on that particular index.
For a country with folks who thinks the US ranks #1, that's pretty low on
that particular index.

10th for 2005, actually. That's number 10 out of 177. Thirty countries
are considered to be at the top of the list with an index between 0.963 and
0.878 and the US is number 10.

Eisboch

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..


The average Norwegian has a much higher quality standard of living than
the average American. I was astonished when I visited my friends there.

True statement due to the socialistic structure of their government, however
it does not tell the whole story.
I have relatives in both Norway and Sweden. Both countries consist of the
"haves" and "have nots". Those whose families owned land and/or farms and
held them within the family for generations control most of the wealth of
the respective country and have the most political influence. The
"have-nots" are well provided for by our standards, but have limited
opportunity to change their status. One of the admired qualities of the US
in both Norway and Sweden is the greater opportunity by all to change or
improve their status. My Swedish relatives are multi-generation land
owners. My Norwegian relatives are not, but both have similar views of the
US.

Eisboch

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..

The average Norwegian has a much higher quality standard of living than
the average American. I was astonished when I visited my friends there.

True statement due to the socialistic structure of their government,
however it does not tell the whole story.
I have relatives in both Norway and Sweden. Both countries consist of
the "haves" and "have nots". Those whose families owned land and/or
farms and held them within the family for generations control most of the
wealth of the respective country and have the most political influence.
The "have-nots" are well provided for by our standards, but have limited
opportunity to change their status. One of the admired qualities of the
US in both Norway and Sweden is the greater opportunity by all to change
or improve their status. My Swedish relatives are multi-generation land
owners. My Norwegian relatives are not, but both have similar views of
the US.

Eisboch


The majority of Americans are moving backwards economically in terms of
earnings, and many have lost or are losing good employment, insurance,
even their houses.

I don't know if the "majority" are or are not, but don't you see the
difference in thinking?
The average "Joe Swede" looks at an American moving backwards and can't, for
the life of him, understand why and may even long for the opportunity that
he thinks the American has.

Eisboch