FORBES controversial article: "How Obama Thinks"

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • kronus
    replied
    ^^ if you want to pick and choose from the PM's speech, so do I:

    The education system plays a crucial role for every child's chances in life. Every child has the right to acquire the tools and values necessary to explore the world around her and to meet the demands of society.

    To achieve this we are carrying out reforms in our education system that focus on knowledge and a commitment to quality.

    We want the primary mission of the education system to be to convey knowledge. Every child must be given opportunities to achieve the basic goals in all subjects.
    Oh no! Universal Edumacation! The horrible government wants to brainwash my children!

    and a bit below that:

    If exclusion from the labour market is our national challenge, the issue of the climate and the environment is the global challenge.

    Global warming is for real. It's already happening. No one these days can be left unaffected by the reports or pictures. The reports and pictures that show us the serious consequences that lie in store for our planet and for future generations, if we do not succeed better in formulating a policy for sustainable development in the long term.

    Sweden has a long tradition of taking an active and assertive role where environment policy is concerned. This is a tradition that Sweden intends to live up to and to do so with renewed vigour. At the same time, we are clear about the fact that the response to climate change requires a new political impulse.

    After long having allowed environmental policy to be coloured by political deals involving regulations and non-growth policies, we see it as our task to create broad agreement around a new climate policy.
    Global warming is real!!! Climate policy! Regulation! This is madness!


    Swedish social democracy has functioned well since the 1930's. Currently, after four years of the conservative government, it still has much more social welfare and benefits than the U.S., including free universal health care. You have to appreciate the PM's comments in that context, not in the American context where "socialism" currently refers to "having nonzero taxes".

    Leave a comment:


  • markseven
    replied
    Originally posted by kronus
    Sweden.
    "The New Swedish Model: A Reform Agenda for Growth and the Environment"

    Mr Fredrik Reinfeldt, Prime Minister of Sweden,

    The London School of Economics and Political Science - February 26, 2008

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    "Then came Sweden's mad quarter of a century.

    Growth fell off. Unemployment rose. The quality of welfare declined. What, then, were the factors that made the Swedish model stop working?

    The economic downturn that followed the two oil crises in the 1970s of course had a negative impact on Sweden. Also, the financial crises and macroeconomic shocks of the early 1990s had substantial consequences for the Swedish economy.

    But these shocks also affected other industrial countries. And it is difficult to argue that Sweden was particularly vulnerable to the international business cycle.

    This alone cannot explain why Sweden fell from fourth place in the OECD's ranking of member countries by GDP per capita around 1970, to eighteenth place in 1997.

    Instead, I would argue that the explanation lies in other factors.

    The vital balance between the institutions in the model disappeared and socialism swept over Swedish society.

    We saw budget deficits and high inflation undermine macroeconomic stability. In many respects this was the result of irresponsible and short-sighted political actions.

    We saw a sharp rise in taxes, especially on labour, together with an expansion of benefit systems that undermined the work-first principle and made it less worthwhile to work.

    The education system was distorted and Swedish schools focused less on knowledge.

    Changes in international competition were met with subsidies rather than reforms. Free enterprise was not encouraged; instead it was questioned.

    We saw a rise in unemployment and the percentage of working-age people supported by various social benefits and subsidies rose from 10 per cent in 1970 to about 20 per cent in the present decade.

    What took a hundred years to build was nearly dismantled in twenty five years."

    The entire speech is here:

    http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/10296/a/99193

    Leave a comment:


  • kronus
    replied
    Originally posted by markseven
    Has socialism worked in a democracy?
    Sweden.

    Leave a comment:


  • markseven
    replied
    Originally posted by Wiglaf
    It might not be all "soft and loveydovey" but it's also not the fascist argument killing hammer that you guys make it out to be.
    Has socialism worked in a democracy?

    Leave a comment:


  • Wiglaf
    replied
    Originally posted by Farbin Kaiber
    I love the way Socialists have twisted the definition of Socialism to make people think it's soft and loveydovey.
    It might not be all "soft and loveydovey" but it's also not the fascist argument killing hammer that you guys make it out to be.

    Leave a comment:


  • joshh
    replied
    Originally posted by Farbin Kaiber
    I love the way Socialists have twisted the definition of Socialism to make people think it's soft and loveydovey.


    "These are not the droids you're looking for."

    Leave a comment:


  • Farbin Kaiber
    replied
    I love the way Socialists have twisted the definition of Socialism to make people think it's soft and loveydovey.

    Leave a comment:


  • z31maniac
    replied
    Originally posted by BMWerke
    Al I does however seem that no matter what side he takes on what ever the topic is there is some waiting to question his ethics.
    That's politics cheif.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vedubin01
    replied
    Originally posted by BMWerke
    All everyone talks about is socialism socialism socialism, Obama is not a socialist. I does however seem that no matter what side he takes on what ever the topic is there is some waiting to question his ethics. Is you don't believe in socialism then don't sent your kids to school or call an ambulance when you crash your 325is around a pole and when it catches on fire from the gas leaking out don't let the fire trucks come. And technically you should be driving because insurance companies are based on socialism.


    Im guessing you went to a public school....

    Leave a comment:


  • BMWerke
    replied
    All everyone talks about is socialism socialism socialism, Obama is not a socialist. I does however seem that no matter what side he takes on what ever the topic is there is some waiting to question his ethics. Is you don't believe in socialism then don't sent your kids to school or call an ambulance when you crash your 325is around a pole and when it catches on fire from the gas leaking out don't let the fire trucks come. And technically you should be driving because insurance companies are based on socialism.

    Leave a comment:


  • markseven
    replied
    Originally posted by Wiglaf
    it doesn't really, but you're gonna have to crack open the history books to get a good example of this.
    Then why bring it up?

    Leave a comment:


  • reelop19
    replied
    You guys do realize that most small businesses fail and failure at something leads to learning your mistakes right? Obama hasn't had to be responsible for jack and now when he finally gets his opportunity to make mistakes its on a world wide scale. Bummer

    Leave a comment:


  • Wiglaf
    replied
    Originally posted by markseven
    Agreed.

    Now how does that change the fact that Mr. Obama is not qualified?
    it doesn't really, but you're gonna have to crack open the history books to get a good example of this.

    Leave a comment:


  • mar1t1me
    replied
    Originally posted by markseven
    Agreed.

    Now how does that change the fact that Mr. Obama is not qualified?
    I am always curious about this idea of qualification. What should we really want? There is no answer a majority will ever agree upon, but for me, if I had to "build" a presidential candidate, I'd be looking for characteristics such as these:

    • Deep reverence for intellectual curiosity.

    • A record of good moral and ethical judgment, but no religious affiliations.

    • Ability to see the micro as well as the macro when looking at situations.

    • Untouchable by lobbyists-he/she must be totally free to act with the best interests of the public in mind, not just business and/or special interests.
    • Incredible charisma. Regardless of party affiliation, the President must be able to speak convincingly to many audiences.

    There are many others, but even after that short list, I can't imagine why any intelligent individual would want such a job given the challenges of having every single utterance politicized by an ever more divisive chorus.

    Leave a comment:


  • markseven
    replied
    Originally posted by Wiglaf
    Yeah like the last guy and his collection of failed oil companies?
    Agreed.

    Now how does that change the fact that Mr. Obama is not qualified?

    Leave a comment:

Working...