Things I want Nationalising

Post Reply New Topic

I'd like to meet Sean when he's in his twenties, has been away from mommy and/or daddy's health insurance for a couple of years in need of health services, and without insurance.
Maybe then he would understand how absurd it is for the United States to be the only advanced country to be without socialized health care while the number of companies making sizeable contributions to their employees insurance plans continues to decrease.

Only a spoiled kid from a privledged family with a profound lack of a social conciousness would advocate half of the stuff he does.

Oh thats right, he's an Aspie kid from a privledged family!
Explains a lot unfortunately.

Unless of course their running the country. Then, according to some of Sean's earlier postings thats perfectly acceptable, and should go unquestioned.

2) Education (already nationalised)Public education sucks. You have to send kids to a private school for a decent education.
Can anyone say privledged? You get out of education what you put into it, the highest achievers from high school on are mostly self educated. Clinton went to public high schools and became a Rhodes scholor. Bush went to private schools and was a C student at best.

3) Welfare (already nationalised) With the exception of the disabled, welfare shouldn't exist.
Again privledged! Poverty has a lot to do with what social class you were born into, and the amount of opportunities that one perceives are available.

4) Emergency Services (already nationalised) That works okay most of the time.
Most of the time, except when Arabic Horse judges with no disaster experience are placed in charge of FEMA.

5) Defense (already nationalised) That still works better than any other nationalized department even though Clinton made it only a shadow if it's former glory.
Here we go again with that old unfounded fundamentalist christian attack. At least Clinton wasn't stupid enough to cut military research contracts on proven systems, engage in two large scale military conflicts at the same time, spend billions of dollars a day dropping bombs on a country that he had to lie to the world to get us busy colonizing, .... I wonder how much of the military will be left when the US is finished paying off Bush's war debt.


I think thats enough. But I'll continue if Sean really wants me too.

A good start would be to re-nationalise the government!

My family lacked the resources to spoil me even if they wanted to, and I was raised far from privileged. I was also raised to go out and get a job instead of sitting around and bitching about welfare benifits and blaming all my problems on the rich.


So are you suggesting that the government seize private private property and buisnesses and turn it over to be managed by people too incompotent to be hired in the private sector?


I went to public schools. The ones I went to happened to go through a period where they were acceptable while I was there, but they have since thouoghly gone to crap and only 43% of the seniors graduated from my old high school last year. Your example of Clinton and Bush only demostrates two kids out of a whole naton.

The government should be facilitating the creation of jobs for the poor, not handouts.

Nobody is going to debate that the hurrcane Katrina relief effort was a total f***up (for lack of a more desciptive word), and that part of Bush's public apology should have included having the FEMA director shot on live TV. However, emergency services generally work well for their everyday purposes.

The defense deartment works better than any other government agency, but it could work even better. Bush could have used defense contracts to boost the economy and create jobs like Regan did and Clinton cut. Anyway, Congress has the authority to make new rules regarding it's own loans, so nobody will likely ever see the effects of the debt beyond election year propaganda.[/quote]

I it only takes one extra hour, I'd say you just might have the best public transportation system in the country! Still, there's alot that can get done in an hour by car.

Deleted

Last edited by Ante on 09 Nov 2005, 8:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Ok, so I apologize about the privledged statement.

I'm not suggesting it, but it does sound like a really good explination of what George W. is doing.


Sounds like a failure to educate themselves to me.


Sounds like a good reason to put sanctions on goods sold by companies who move their manufacturing overseas making it more cost effective to keep their manufacturing in the United States. Also sounds like a good reason to stop shopping at Walmart. I think the best answer is to vote Democrat in 2006, and to unelect George W.


Sounds like the cold war ended to me.


You're right they do, but whether or not you will feel the effects seems to very with what economic group you are in. Read this article from the Washington Post and see for yourself.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/16/AR2005101601055_pf.html

Some hick town in Rhode Island tried it and the liberals in the Supreme Court agrreed.


Locally, it has long been known that there are problems with the administration of both the schools and the districts, and that tends to be a biartisan opinion around here.


Clinton was reponsible for that when he signed NAFTA. You are right that people shouldn't shop at Wal-mart.


The economy did great during the Cold War. You wouldn't have to use all the new military stuff against anybody, but it would make decent paying jobe for people, and the stuff is there if you need it.


Social services could be administered for everybody but the physically and mentally disabled by re-instating the draft. I would have joined the Marines right out of high school if I was physically fit for service.

Why the hell should you be forced into the military for being poor? I'd rather starve than be compelled to fight someone else's politically motivated battles. That's fascistic, and frankly scary.

Everybody would go through the military, both male and famale, with no college defferments. They would serve a two year term like how it was done before, get job skills, health care even after they are discharged, and get a college scholarship. I say use the military for it because the military has the only system that really works for support services.

In today's America, that may be true. Why? In a word, funding. If public services were funded to the same extent, and managed along similar lines, why is an efficient welfare/health system outside the military unachievable? And without the fighting for Georgie bollocks. I would support civic service in a scheme like you describe if the state actually functioned for the benefit of all its members rather than to enrich politicians and multinationals, like in social-democratic countries (e.g. Denmark, Norway).

Penalising the poor is a really profitable thing to do though, Uncle Tony is catching on as well.
http://www.gp.org/press/pr_2005_10_11.shtml

Umm, I don't know if you've noticed, but Addenbrookes is about to axe a huge chunk of its mental health budget and overall is in a pretty ropey financial state, so I don't think you can just say it was only bad when Thatcher was in power.

How did you select your list of things to nationalise? I agree with things like basic transport infrastructure, where a free-market approach wrecks havoc with the environment and only leaves good transport available to the lucky few, but renewable energy?

I vote for nationalising the UK chocolate industry (now in large part owned by a certain swiss corporation). Oh, and free chocolate rations for me

Sorry, Mark, I should have said that the NHS was good until Thatcher came to power. Thatcher wrecked it, and it has never recovered, only becoming more inefficient!! !! !

Yes, renewable energy should be nationalised because it is the only safe and green energy source of the future. The private sector has had decades to start on this, but as yet, only 4% of our power comes from these sources. By nationalising, we can start producing renewable energy on a large scale, all subsidized by public funds (its expensive!!). Left to market forces, this would never happen, partly due to vested interest in oil, and partly due to the fact that unsubsidized renewable energy is too expensive for the average person to afford. We need this energy NOW because global warming is starting to get out of hand. We cannot burn gas and oil forever!! !

My opinion is that power generation is best run by the state. But, what they need to do is remove our reliance on foreign oil and gas imports. That means building modern nuclear power generation plants (and decomissioning the old ones), in combination with providing cost-effective "renewable" energy projects, like the Severn Barrage. This is one of the real issues that idiot Blair should be considering, rather than wasting time with things like banning fox hunting.

Also RobertN, you need to consider that even if your socialist Utopia got off the ground, it would have to operate within the environment of global capitalism, and that Corporations and taxpayers are not bottomless pits as far as state finance are concerned.

I think you can nationalise energy production, but not specific kinds of energy.

Doesn't the benefit of nationalisation come from having a single entity responsible for all electrical energy production and distribution? The choice of whether to use coal, oil, gas, nuclear, thermal, solar, wind, wave, hydo-electric, orbiting solar platforms or continent scale thermocouples is probably best implemented by the nationalised industry, rather than as a nationalised industry in itself.

I'm surprised that the American folk here seem very against a nationalised energy industry. A good part of the Iraq excursion was about nationalising the oil industry... [/me ducks for cover!]

What we need to do is nationalise the whole WORLD and be done with it. Then we would have no problems at all as I see it, it would fix all the problems of this WORLD too.