h wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

Norminn wrote:

Stormin Mormon wrote:

Subsidized: Where the government takes money, by force, from the
citizens.
To pay for something that the citizens don't want to think they are
really
actually paying for.

I'm sure California could have lower energy prices, if they raised taxes
to
pay the difference. Then, they could be just as socialist as Albeeta.



How is giving my money to big banks NOT Socialist? And why do Socialist
countries have a much
higher standard of living than we do?

Care to give an example of such a socialist country with a higher
standard of living than that in the US?

Sweden. And just a point, the US doesn't even make the top ten list of
countries with the highest standard of living, although Canada, Finland,
Norway, and Sweden all do.

Care to provide cites to that ranking and to the criteria used to
determine it? I expect an objective eye will find significant bias in
the criteria, intentional or unintentional.

It could well be unintentional as I've found in much dealings with
Europeans that they have great difficulty grasping just how large and
diverse the US is (The entire UK would fit into Texas something like
3.5X) and that one seemingly bad statistic in one city in no way applies
to the entire US.

I can't say I've been to Sweden, Norway or Finland, however I have been
to Canada numerous times and from everything I've seen, the standard of
living there is not any better than that in the US.