(10-12-2011, 07:51 AM)kandrathe Wrote: Not a fact. Cuba? Former Soviet Union? China under Maoists?
Quote:First those countries were dictatorship which were not social. It is not social to have a ruling class that is rich.
Second, Cuba is probably the best in the class when you compare them to countries in their region DESPITE being victim of a very unfair trade blockade.
I was talking about north west european countries. social ...I didn't say communist dictatorships.
[quote='kandrathe' pid='190175' dateline='1318405891']
You may have noticed the Europe, and the US are struggling with a financial crisis where socialism is running out of deep pockets to rob. Political slogans aside, adding the Buffet tax for millionaires and above would only raise about 40 billion per year in the US when we have at least a 2 trillion deficit. And, 2010 was the first year of the retiring boomers. The realistic Medicare projections have it alone exceeding 8% of GDP by 2030.
Likely western society has to change even more social if it wants to survive. You can't explain to the Greeks that they get fired, saleries lowered etc. when the people that caused the crisis are still rich.
That is a nice ethical question for you; is it really fair that somebody has more then a billion dollars on his bank account? Of course, taking it away from him raises ethical questions but 1; he made the money because of the way the society he lives in was build up and 2, this ethical question answer no at the moment, but what happens if will not get out of this crisis? When people start starving on the streets (even in the west)....what will the answer then be? Chances are very big that we will change our perception of what is ethical or not?
So no, a little tax for the super rich will not help, but say take half of the money of all billionaires and build solar and wind power plants....maybe the US doesn't need to import oil anymore and will prosper again? Who knows.??
[quote='kandrathe' pid='190166' dateline='1318372827']I guess what I was trying to get at, and I guess it was vague, was that if a science teacher's agenda is to promote atheism, that it is as egregious to me as promoting creationism.
A science teacher teaches science.
If he explains something about dinosaurs or fossils is that promoting atheism? It will collide with the ideas of some religious people if they are smart enough to understand....but promotion of atheism????