Social Democracy

[Bondo]

In the fall I wrote a research paper on whether the social democratic style of countries like Sweden, Germany, and Canada would work in the U.S.  I think it could spawn an interesting debate so I'm going to post it here.  Just to set a guideline to prevent potential unfortunate things, the debate should only be about the issues taked about in the paper, not criticisms of the paper itself.  For example, I know it doesn't have citations for every claim...the reason for that is that I was already pushing the maximum length...but rest assured all the claims in my paper were supported by the material in my works cited.  Anyways, I'm going to start in the next post and it will probably take a few to fit it in.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

While there are some drawbacks, the benefits of a social democratic system outweigh the considerable costs.

Well, that's what you are trying to prove.  It's not a given.

?In Sweden, the social democracy system is often called ?cradle to grave?, referring to the social programs offered throughout the stages of a person?s life.? They help raise the child into a productive adult, they aid the adult through their working years, and they provide a comfortable retirement when a person is older.? The whole course of a Swedish citizen?s life is improved through the social programs in place.

If you replaced "Sweden" with "American" all these same statements would still be true.  There are social programs like that here.  If you are trying to say Sweden's is better, you make it sound like it's unique.

Sweden?s life expectancy, the best general indicator of health, is second only to Japan averaging 77.8 years where as the United States is average for an industrialized nation at 76.3 years (Hampden-Turner, 245).  It is clear that in maintaining a high level of health among all citizens, nationalized health care is more efficient than the private insurance currently used in most cases in the United States.  

So the fact that Europeans just lead a different lifestyle, eating a lower percentage of fatty foods, stress, and many other factors have no weight in this?  Only the quality of the health care?  I disagree.  It's not clear at all.  There are too many variables in life expectancy.

?German medicine is second only to the USA?s in technology and drug development?(Glassman, 139).  Germany has a nationalized health care system yet maintains high technological standards.  Yes, they pay more to do so but certainly it shows that poor technology is not a given in nationalized health care.  

But second by a wide margin.  You make it sound like it's almost as good.  Second place can be a world behind first place.  So, I argue that that fact doesn't show anything.

No doubt the same would be true about service, if funded properly, there is no reason a nationalized heath care system would have to be synonymous with bad service.

Doesn't have to be, but it sure seems to be.  Lack of quality and pride in work is one of the hallmark negative traits of socialsim.  Socialism isn't known for rewarding high quality work, or punishing low quality work.  

Like most social programs, it is more efficient and affordable if they are state run.  Having the daycare run by the state also prevents an inequality in the access and quality of care between members of different economic classes.

State run programs efficient?  What are you smoking?  State run programs are known for being inefficient.  You have not compared quality yet.

[Bondo]

Well, that's what you are trying to prove.  It's not a given.

That is why it is my thesis statement.  I say that and then the rest of the paper shows why it is worth the costs.

If you replaced "Sweden" with "American" all these same statements would still be true.  There are social programs like that here.  If you are trying to say Sweden's is better, you make it sound like it's unique.

Sweden is an example of that.  And sure, the US has some programs for each age group, but they are woefully lacking in comparison.  The US doesn't provide for maternity/paternity leave, the US doesn't provide for daycare, the US doesn't have very good laws about work (hours, vacation, job security).  And social security is at a crisis point soon with the way they are raiding the savings for it.  I never say Sweden is alone...other social democracies do it as well, but the US doesn't really when you consider the level of programs that I'm talking about.

So the fact that Europeans just lead a different lifestyle, eating a lower percentage of fatty foods, stress, and many other factors have no weight in this?  Only the quality of the health care?  I disagree.  It's not clear at all.  There are too many variables in life expectancy.

It all boils down to health care though because when the result of bad lifestyles hits then you depend on the health care to come in and fix the problems.

But second by a wide margin.  You make it sound like it's almost as good.  Second place can be a world behind first place.  So, I argue that that fact doesn't show anything.

It proves the point I stated, that nationalized health care doesn't mean poor technology or innovation directly.  Basically the health care system isn't what is holding it back...I'm breaking that corelation.

Doesn't have to be, but it sure seems to be.  Lack of quality and pride in work is one of the hallmark negative traits of socialsim.  Socialism isn't known for rewarding high quality work, or punishing low quality work.  

You are speaking of socialism in general...that isn't the topic of this paper.  Socialistic democracies are capitalistic...you can make more than others if you work.  So your point doesn't apply.  And in this specific instance I was talking about health care service which has nothing to do with the quality of work as much as the strain on the available services.  Something investing more money into more staff and facilities would ease.

State run programs efficient?  What are you smoking?  State run programs are known for being inefficient.  You have not compared quality yet.

Well, sure, the US is inefficient governmentally, but that doesn't mean that everywhere else is...many other nation's govermental programs run very tight ships with little financial waste.  And later on when I'm talking about the ability to work in the US I mention that unlike the current social democracies, the US is very wasteful which would threaten to make it not work.  Personally, considering that, if I were trying to install large social programs, I'd have it the rules set on a federal level but have them funded and run on a local level.  Of course for this the federal taxes would be miniscule, paying primarily for military, while the state taxes (via sales tax) would be much higher than present...but overall taxes wouldn't need to see a massive increase.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

In the United States, schools are paid for by the property tax of those who live in the school?s area.  This leads to huge disparities in funding from school to school and tends to keep poor communities poor.  

The United States doesn't govern how schools are funded.  They are funded at the State and Local levels.  So what you have completely missed is different states have different rules in how schools are funded.  School districts in my state get state money, as well as local money.  Business taxes also go towards education, as well as lottery earnings.  Bad facts Bondo.  While researching Sweden, you may have overlooked researching the USA.

With a social democracy, all schools are of equal, usually very high, quality and therefore all the students receive a quality education regardless of background.  

Now THAT really needs to be qualified.  You are saying that all schools in a social democracy are better then American schools?  Better prove that, and with more then one social democracy.  It may be easy to find a program better in quality.  But you make it sound like it's a rule.  Prove it.

College is very expensive in the United States and so it discriminates based on wealth and prevents upward mobility.  In a social program like Sweden?s, college is free for all students who qualify, based on academic ability, to attend.  

With all the programs for aid, scholarships, and low cost community colleges.  I've never actually met anyone that didn't go to college because they didn't have the money.  I'm sure there are some out there, but there are many more that use it as an excuse.  The amount of both public and private "social" funds for college education in America is staggering.  A large amount of money goes unused every year.  

In other words, we need to make it easier for students to get the money, not change the system to provide more money.

Compared to the United States, workers in social democracies work fewer hours, have more paid vacation, and have more job security.

They also make less money, less "wealth".  You are talking about the fundimental difference between capitalistic and socialistic systems.  The distribution of wealth.  In America, we compete with each other for jobs, to earn more, have more, etc.  This is why we also work more hours and have less vacation.  As part of our system, there are winners and losers.  It's what drives innovation.  Competition brings out the best and worst in people, it's a crucible.  Socialsim is a luke warm pool, lacking posative or negative reinforcement.

In the United States, the social security in place is inadequate to support a comfortable life; instead it is supplemented by private pension programs that are often very expensive or dependant on the strength of the economy.  

Private pensions are not expensive.  They are INVESTMENTS, either by you or you in the form of an IRA or 401K, or by your employer in the case of an actual pension.  All a socialism is doing is collecting it in higher taxes (like our social security, but with more money, more taxes).  So they are forcing you to save, even if you don't live to spend it.  And if you don't live, it goes back in the pot, not to your children (unlike a 401K).

[|MP|Buccaneer]

With all of these social programs raising the quality of life in social democratic nations, it is clear that they are changes to be desired.  

These changes come with high costs.  America has voted down many of these programs because of the cost or quality in the past (usually done on the state level).  And many don't agree that they raise the quality of life.  For instance, my quality of life would be lowered (more on this in conclusion).

when you consider that economies of scale would lower the per person cost due to the United States much greater population, should be able to support at least equivalent programs while leaving more disposable income.

Wrong side of the scale.  These larger programs generate much more waste.  The larger the organization, the greater the waste, the less efficient, the slower to change and adapt.

Europe these tax breaks don?t exist so everyone pays their fair share and the government can collect much more.

First, my tax breaks amount to buying a house (which is a good thing) giving to charity (socail causes supplied not by the state), my retirement 401k (which isn't being paid by the government like there) and next year, a college fund I'll start for my daughter once she's born.  All these breaks are things that a socialist government would supply that I'm paying for outside of taxes.

On top of that, I paid $23,454 in Federal Taxes last year.  Another $5808 in State Income Tax, 6% State Sales Tax (which I can estimate at around $1800 based upon what I spent in disposable goods) add on Local Property Tax at $3200 FICA and Social Security last year and figure I paid in the neighborhood of $39,000.00USD in all taxes last year.  That's roughly 30% of what I made.  That's for one, unmarried guy.  Isn't that enough to pay in taxes already?  More on this in the conclusion.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

The luxury tax is just an extension of the sales tax on products that are less essential and more frivolous.  These taxes if applied properly can effectively obtain the funding needed for social programs without being so high as to diminish the rewards of hard work.

We already have this in most states.

If the difference in entrepreneurship is indeed cultural rather than economic, the United States could very well maintain its drive even if taxes were increased to pay for a social democracy.  Whether it is the culture or the taxes, social democratic countries have seen more modest economic growth than that of the United States, but in losing the ability to have massive growth, they have gained security against drastic recessions when compared to the United States.

Now this I disagree with wholeheartedly.  They suffered from the great depression as much or more then anyone.  They also suffered at the last big recession in the 80's.  You have to take global economics into consideration, not just socail programs as well.  

The United States has always promoted an individualistic survival system and would rather look down upon the poor as lazy than offer them a helping hand.

Now you couldn't be more wrong then you are here.  Americans give more to charity then any other country.  Look at the amount of aid that is given, both here and abroad.  There are two major differences.  One, that old saying "give a man a fish, and he eats for a day, teach him how to fish, and he eats for life.  We give with the idea of them changing their lives, not just taking it and wanting it again the next day, and the next.  The second being that we'd rather have it done by choice, then by the government.

An inefficient government compounds this distaste of large social programs.  The constitution set up the separation of powers to prevent radicals from making dramatic changes but it has also prevented change of any significance.  The United States government also is more bureaucratic and wasteful than those in the social democratic nations.

Don't forget the power of the States.  We are the United States.  The States themselves want and have the power.  The federal government is supposed to be our working together.  The states themselves were set up to have most of the power (even if it's not reflected as much today).  Most social aid programs are run at the State level, not the federal level.

And don't forget to take SIZE into the equation of waste.  The USA is much bigger then the social democratic nations.  But less wasteful of the other countries of the same size (China and Russia).

Instead the United States will remain behind the social democratic countries in many categories of human well-being.  

Having not shown that the USA is behind the social democratic nations in any way, and only using one nation to compare with, along with ignoring other aspects and variables, you don't seem to have proven anything.  The numbers that you site don't support your assumptions.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

In conclusion.

You haven't really shown any real advantage of socialistic democracy over a capitalistic republic.  All the programs you talked about exist in the USA.  Sweden does some things better and some things worse then the USA.  You haven't linked any of it to the actual political/economic system.  

While we are a bigger nation, and have more waste, we also have a higher GNP.  In the ways that are important to most Americans (note the point of view) we have a higher quality of life.  

As for the state of our tax system, it could be reformed greatly from my point of view.  But tax reform, hell, how taxes are collected, has nothing to do with the political system, just with how the individual government practices it.  Some states don't have income tax, and have shown that it works.  Some don't have sales tax.  It's just the IRS that needs to be shucked and started afreash.

As for the state of social security and wellfare, reforms are also called for.  Big reforms.  They need to shore up social security just like any other pension program.  It's under funded do to bad decisions, they have to bite the bullit and find a way to pull in the cash.  

Wellfare is a whole different story.  I'm going to go off on this one.

I worked hard to get where I am.  I am living the American Dream.  My parents were not well off.  Nobody in my family graduated from college before me.  My parents couldn't pay for my education.  I earned scholarships.  I took a student loan.  I got a BS, got a grant and earned an MBA.  Last year I earned well into the six figure mark (before taxes and the losses I took in the market).  I worked damn hard to get there, and worked damn hard to earn that money.  Why should I give even more so a wellfare mother can have one more crack baby, and not do a damn thing for this society?  

Don't get me wrong.  I'm all for lending the helping hand.  I'm all for unemployment and wellfare.  I am not for the wasteful system we have now that doesn't encourage or reward people for getting off it.  I'm not for the bloated system that doesn't change anything.  

Improving our tax system, our wellfare system or our social security system isn't changing our political-economic system.  It's called improvement.  Making things more efficient is a core of capitalism, we just need to focus efforts there, which we haven't for a long time.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

That is why it is my thesis statement.  I say that and then the rest of the paper shows why it is worth the costs.

No, it didn't for me.

Sweden is an example of that.  And sure, the US has some programs for each age group, but they are woefully lacking in comparison.  The US doesn't provide for maternity/paternity leave, the US doesn't provide for daycare, the US doesn't have very good laws about work (hours, vacation, job security).  And social security is at a crisis point soon with the way they are raiding the savings for it.  

If you believe the media, Social Security ran out in 1989.  It's been in crisis since the late 70's according to the media.  Not that it doesn't need reform, but don't be reactionary.  You also make a very subjective statemt there about very good laws.  Again you ignore that most laws are enacted by the states, not by the federal government.  We most likely have different minimum wages, different rules regarding what age you can work at, and other things Bondo, just between our two states.

Also, the work laws seem to be good enough for most of America.  I don't see any large movements to get us down to the 30 hour work week.  Oh, and I get paternity leave.  6 weeks paid.  You see, part of our system puts the burden on the companies.  If the companies want the best people, they provide the best benifits.

I never say Sweden is alone...other social democracies do it as well, but the US doesn't really when you consider the level of programs that I'm talking about.

Bigest problem with your paper.  You don't talk about the level of programs.  You talk like they exist there, not here.  You need to look at why is one program better, how it is better.  On an individual basis.  You have been very general in saying that they are better.

It all boils down to health care though because when the result of bad lifestyles hits then you depend on the health care to come in and fix the problems.

Bull.  If their health care system isn't "challenged" with the number and extent of "bad lifestyles", then you can't measure it's success accordingly.  Put it this way, you have a city of marathon runners.  None smoke, drink or eat red meat.  Their average life expectancy is 102.  Another city is full of overweight, heavy drinking, chain smoking coach potatos.  Their average life expectancy with the same health care should be 102?  I don't think so.  

One other point that wasn't shown is, cause of death.  Another variable that needs to be there to see the whole picture.

But second by a wide margin.  You make it sound like it's almost as good.  Second place can be a world behind first place.  So, I argue that that fact doesn't show anything.

It proves the point I stated, that nationalized health care doesn't mean poor technology or innovation directly.  Basically the health care system isn't what is holding it back...I'm breaking that corelation.

No, it proves no such thing.  Not at all.  Second place could be the stone age, couldn't it.  You did not show anything to quantify quality, just placement.  The state of the second best could be 10 or 20 years behind.  And it is pretty far behind, probably not that much though.  

[|MP|Buccaneer]

You are speaking of socialism in general...that isn't the topic of this paper.  Socialistic democracies are capitalistic...you can make more than others if you work.  So your point doesn't apply.  And in this specific instance I was talking about health care service which has nothing to do with the quality of work as much as the strain on the available services.  Something investing more money into more staff and facilities would ease.

There is no competition in socalized medacine.  Which is what you are talking about.  National health care = socalized medacine.  No competition.  No incentive to be better then the other hospitals.  It has as much to do with the quality of work as it does with throwing more money at it.  Where's the more money going to come from anyway???  Even higher taxes??  I also note that you never talked about how high the tax rate is there.  It's a huge omission.

Well, sure, the US is inefficient governmentally, but that doesn't mean that everywhere else is...many other nation's govermental programs run very tight ships with little financial waste.  

Show me a nation as large that doesn't.  I support that it has more to do with size then it does with system.  The large socialsims are (were) more wasteful then the USA.  I don't see the connection between the two.

All in all Boondo, you really over simplified the whole thing.  There are so many more variables that enter into the equation that you haven't mentioned.  You write as if it's all in the political - economic system.  It's not.  You also write as if the Federal government has more power in these matters then the States.  It doesn't.  We are a republic of States.  States rights to govern themselves was a huge issue when this country was formed.  When we deal internationally, we deal as a federal nation.  When we deal with ourselves it's much more about the states.  

There is a world of difference between living in Michigan and living in California.  Or New York.  Or Texas.  Or Florida.  We have different taxes, different powers in the state government.  Different laws.  You seem to take the lowest common denominator and apply it to all states.

All in all, this paper wouldn't have gotten a very good grade where I went to school.  The works cited didn't actually support any of your conclusions, but seemed like numbers that you took out of context.  You took in none of the differences between those countries and the USA other then the political system.  You didn't argue the negative either.  It basically read that they are better countries because they have these social programs and we don't (or theirs are better).  It never said how they are better, to what degree, and the real costs of them.  It was all soap box preaching without any real meat to it.

One last thing I'd add.  If the quality of life is so improved by these things, why is the suiside rate so much higher in tose countries per capita?  Wouldn't they be happier, and want to stick around longer?  Food for thought.

[kami]

Guys, get a room!

Anyway, I'm not going to read through this right now, waaay too long, some other day.

What I can say is that I think Swedish social democracy sucks because our taxes are way too high, 'cept for that I think it's all fine 'n dandy.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

That brings up a good question.  Why do people post just to say that they don't have time to read or post?

[Bondo]

Bucc, what did I write in my first post...that this would be a discussion of issues, not a criticism of my paper...and what do you do, you go right to criticizing my paper.  Also Bucc, I can't reply to you because you replied in such a method that makes any response impossible, next time instead of quoting like mad just talk generally about topics...especially since your quoting is one of the pointers that you were not talking about the issues but specifically talking about my paper.  Sorry, but you are misinformed on many things, I did research and took my claims from secondary sources which in the world of acedemia are more reliable than you saying I'm wrong.  Now I suggest you delete your posts and try again following the rules I laid out in the first post.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Bondo, I'm not just criticizing your paper, if I did that, I'd be talking about writing styles and such.  The only place I criticized it was in my very last comment.  In all other comments (about 95%), I'm arguing issues.  

As for my style of debating, it's a classic style, taking one point at a time.  Sorry if you can't keep up with it, but it's not impossible to follow.  I managed to do it well with yours, after all.

As for me being misinformed, not.  There wasn't anything I said to be misinformed about.  If you read my posts, I'm breaking down your argument, because of lack of substance amongst other things.  You keep saying it's better without proving anything.  Instead of proving the opposite, I'm just punching holes in your statements.  Why? because it's easy.  

If you did the reasearch to actually support your conclusions, that's what you should have sited.

Last, you don't make the rules.  And I don't need to delete anything or follow them.  Anyone that wants to take the time to read how your arguments in that paper are a very narrow and unsupported view can see for themselves.  So I suggest you read what I wrote, and show me where I'm wrong, if you can.

[jn.loudnotes]

Hmm...did you say something Bucc?  Oh well, I don't have time to read it.

 

By the way, I applaud the two of you for carrying on your discussion in (so far) a civilized and restrained manner  

[Bondo]

Bucc, it is my thread...I do make the rules if you don't agree with them then by all means, feel free not to participate in the discussion.  

Here, I'll add a rule from my Comparative Religions syllabus that might be helpful for you to follow.

Above all, we should try and remember that everyone has their own opinions about different issues, and the point of discussion is to hear what people think about issues, not to judge, demean, or correct someone's view.

I stated right at the top that due to length restrictions on the paper, I didn't have room to put more citations...If I were to add all the proof that I had the paper would have been 20-30 pages, not 6.  Lack of citation does not mean my points aren't true.

As for you not criticising my paper...then what are all the "huge ommision" "Big problem with your paper" etc.  Don't give me bullshit saying you aren't criticising my paper.  You even said that it wouldn't have gotten a good grade where you went to college (how does that argue any issue other than your view of my paper?).  You also seem to focus on correcting things I say (whether they are wrong or not), and certianly doing plenty of judging and demeaning.  Grow up and follow the rules I laid out to have a nice peaceful discussion.  Feel free to say what you think of Social Democracy or having social programs or increased stature, but you don't need to say I'm wrong to disagree.

Oh and a final note, I got a 100% for this paper...it was a 100 level course not a masters thesis btw...that does make a difference.

[Mr. Lothario]

???Once a citizen becomes an adult, social democracy focuses mostly on providing superior work conditions.  Compared to the United States, workers in social democracies work fewer hours, have more paid vacation, and have more job security.  This creates a more content and productive workforce that has less turnover, as employees are loyal to their employers.  Also, with stricter job security, companies cannot simply lay off workers for the financial bottom line, which in turn leads to lower unemployment rates such as Sweden?s at 1.61% of the labor force in comparison with the United States which has 5.5% unemployment (Hampden-Turner, 244).

     Not being able to lay off workers also has serious negative consequences. First, it means that employers can not slough off inferior employees in order to free up money to hire better employees with. Second and far more damning, legislated job security inevitably leads to bottom-of-the-barrel service. Look at the jobs we have in America where employees are virtually guaranteed that they'll never be fired: government jobs. Postal workers, city functionaries, school district employees, etc. are renowned for doing half-assed jobs. They just don't care about doing things right the first time or about making sure the customer (to use the word loosely) is satisfied, because they can't be fired for doing a bad job, and they won't be rewarded for doing a good job. You're talking about a nation of employees like that.

     How long is the average duration of unemployment in Sweden compared to that in America? I suspect that it's much harder to find a job in Sweden, in part because people aren't ever fired.

[cookie]

Bucc, it is my thread...I do make the rules if you don't agree with them then by all means, feel free not to participate in the discussion.  

I know this is completely irrelevant but i thought id like to point out the irony in your statment bondo when you said  "discussion" but also said that bucc has to agree with you. Since when does a discussion have to be mutually agreeable on all sides?  

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Bucc, it is my thread...I do make the rules if you don't agree with them then by all means, feel free not to participate in the discussion.  

Bondo, it's my voice, I do make the rules on how I use it.  Feel free to not post your thoughts or papers if you don't like the way I respond.

Here, I'll add a rule from my Comparative Religions syllabus that might be helpful for you to follow.

Above all, we should try and remember that everyone has their own opinions about different issues, and the point of discussion is to hear what people think about issues, not to judge, demean, or correct someone's view.

Didn't sign up for that class, don't need to abide by that rule.  Thank you very much.  Also, the point of this thread was to debate, not just hear your opinions.  So this rule is meaningless in this context.  

As for you not criticising my paper...then what are all the "huge ommision" "Big problem with your paper" etc.  Don't give me bullshit saying you aren't criticising my paper.  You even said that it wouldn't have gotten a good grade where you went to college (how does that argue any issue other than your view of my paper?).  

Nice to see that you actually read that words that I type in the keyboard.  Need me to spell them out slower?  I said:
 "Bondo, I'm not just criticizing your paper, if I did that, I'd be talking about writing styles and such.? The only place I criticized it was in my very last comment.? In all other comments (about 95%), I'm arguing issues.?"

Sounds like I did exactly what I said I did.  That last comment where I talked about it as a paper.

You even said that it wouldn't have gotten a good grade where you went to college (how does that argue any issue other than your view of my paper?).?

As noted above, yes, in the one spot where I talked about it as a paper.  Oh, and I was thinking of it as a High School paper, not a college level.  My bad.

Oh and a final note, I got a 100% for this paper...it was a 100 level course not a masters thesis btw...that does make a difference.

Just goes to show that big hole in education we have here Bondo.  That's the best point you made in favor of other education systems yet.

You also seem to focus on correcting things I say (whether they are wrong or not), and certianly doing plenty of judging and demeaning.?

I am arguing your points.  They were weak and not supported.  That's a big part of debate.  That is what this thread was about, no?

Feel free to say what you think of Social Democracy or having social programs or increased stature, but you don't need to say I'm wrong to disagree.

I may not have to, but since you started this thread, it is the most logical and easiest way to show it.  There is nothing wrong with it.  Or do we need to get into your sensativity issues again?

Grow up and follow the rules I laid out to have a nice peaceful discussion.?

To this point, my discussion had been very peaceful.  You, on the other hand, are taking issue with how I respond, and not to the actual responces.  Typical.  And I'll say it once again.  I don't recognize any rules that you lay out.  Grow up and deal with it.  You are the one that has taken this up a notch with comments like " Sorry, but you are misinformed on many things, I did research and took my claims from secondary sources which in the world of acedemia are more reliable than you saying I'm wrong."  

Well, I'm here, debating the issues.  If I'm saying somethign wrong, prove it.  They are all there, point by point.

Loudnotes: it wont last for long.  Bondo put something out here that he appears to be unable to support.  Looks like he's going to go off and go after me then talk about the very issues he started this with.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

One more little point.

Bondo, if you wanted to start a debate about why it woud be advantagous (or not) to move to a social democracy from our current system, that's what you should have said.  You shouldn't have stated it whit all the fodder to be prayed upon.  I'm talking about the CONTENT of your post (paper), not how good it is.  You kicked off this debate with that information.  I kicked down that information for being weak and short sighted.  

If you didn't want to talk about the CONTENT, you shouldn't have posted it.  I made one little section talking about it as a paper, and that seems to be all you have focused on.  Get over it.

Debate or lock the thread.  Stop trying to make it about me.

[Bondo]

I know this is completely irrelevant but i thought id like to point out the irony in your statment bondo when you said  "discussion" but also said that bucc has to agree with you. Since when does a discussion have to be mutually agreeable on all sides?  

I never said he had to agree with me...he is free to disagree by stating a different point of view.  But he isn't saying a different point of view, he is stating that what I posted is lacking.

Bucc, that you quoted me at all pretty much shows that you were more concerned with what I had to say about it then having your own view.

Anyways, I'm sorry that my simple rules weren't able to be followed by one particular hard-headed individual who seems destined to insult my views rather than have views of his own.  I'm going to lock this thread and hopefully a moderator will then delete it.