I have some serious problems in understanding these US slang terms.
MR, what exactly does it mean? would you mind to explain?
with love,
sanjay
People already have free access to all those things, so obviously not. Of those three, the only one that's in dangerous of collapsing the economy is healthcare, because medical tech is preposterously advanced, and it's simply a mathematical impossibility to make it cheap enough and available enough to everybody in the way the left fantasizes. People get 13 years of education for free- every citizen freely learns how to read, write, do math and science well enough to perform probably 90% of the jobs out there. The idea that because there is such a thing as college, it needs to be free is silly. If it's super important that people learn something presently only available in college, there should be space to fit it in the 13 years of school they already get for free. Maybe do a little less finger painting, a little less black history month.
But the real thing Zinnat suggested that would collapse the economy is his preposterous idea that the state should be buying people's shelter, food, and clothing for them too. Not only is this enormously expensive in itself, but at this point you're actually taking away people's incentive to work. If I can eat, sleep indoors, wear clothes and get medical care all without paying anything out of my pocket, then why the hell am I getting a job? For luxury items, that's it. How much do you have to pay somebody per hour to get them out of the house for a job they don't actually need? How much can you afford to pay somebody to, say, harvest tomatoes when the State is giving tomatoes to those same people for nothing?
Another question is, do you give free everything to EVERYBODY, or just people who are poor? If you take away the free housing, meal ticket, etc. from folks when they hit a certain income level, then you run the risk of people working for a living at that level being materially worse off than people who do nothing and let the State pay for their life. And in fact, we already see this with the welfare system insofar as it exists.
The point of social welfare should be to get people past emergency situations that a typical citizen can’t be expected to afford on their own, or a temporary way to help people who find themselves in a crisis.
How do you make it appear as though healthcare, legal services, and schooling provided by the state is good? Why, you take away anybody's ability to get something better, of course!
Why do you think privatizing healthcare, schooling, and legal services makes them more expensive? Do you have any evidence of this at all? The U.S. military is nationalized. When you think of the U.S. military, does 'cheap and efficient' come to mind?
Why would a school that has to earn a profit, and risks ceasing to exist if they don’t be more wasteful of money than a school that can simply ask the State for more money whenever the coffers are low?
Why would a person give up 8-12 years of their lives becoming qualified to be a doctor, professor, or lawyer, only to work for a wage the State dictates? Is that wage going to be high enough to make being these things competitive compared to jobs that are easier and require less education? Welll then you aren't removing the profit motive, you're just putting it under state control. Or maybe I'm presuming too much - do people still get to choose their jobs in your Glorious Society, or does the State simply dictate who has to be a doctor or lawyer to make sure there are enough of them?
Why are companies researching new medical technologies if they aren't allowed to seek a profit in doing so? If they are allowed to seek a profit, and you apparently think profit seeking makes prices higher, how does the State manage medical costs when private companies are still researching everything?
Or once again, maybe I am assuming too much- is private medical research allowed to exist in your society, or does the State determine how much and what kind of that is allowed to happen as well?
Then how come when this kind of rampant socialism has been tried in the past, it keeps on leading to immediate economic collapse?
Ucci,
I just messed with almost an essay, which I wrote as your reply. I will rewrite and post that again as a new thread in the name of “education, healthcare and legal services”.
Look for that.
With love,
Sanjay
Ucci,
I have been created the thread. Look for it.
With love,
Sanjay
It just means that I’m not shitting you. Or, that I’m not bullshitting you. Or, that the things I’m telling you are true, and therefore not shit.
“I shit you not”
You DO have trouble with English verbs. 
But he still speaks more languages than most Americans. Give the guy a little credit. How many people in the US would have the discipline and aptitude to get good enough at another language to actually communicate with it? Some…but not many.
Not everyone can be a Timothy Doner, polyglot.
Must be nice to have been raised cleanly.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNmf-G81Irs[/youtube]
Americans used to have better things on their minds.
I’m not watching that video.
And here I thought (when I read the title) this thread would be interesting rather than ironic 
Okay. I got it.
With love,
Sanjay
I do not get it, James.
I do not think that I was wrong according to the grammar.-------
FUNCTIONS OF THE PRESENT PERFECT CONTINUOUS
The present perfect continuous refers to an unspecified time between ‘before now’ and ‘now’. The speaker is thinking about something that started but perhaps did not finish in that period of time. He/she is interested in the process as well as the result, and this process may still be going on, or may have just finished.
With love,
Sanjay
Too many people and too few jobs. This trend will increase in the future.
Human labor will be replaced by robots. The Elites will try to reduce human labor as much as they can, in order to maximize profits. Then they will put their money in Swiss Bank Accounts so they do not have to pay taxes. People will be jobless, because the Elites provide them no possibility to work. And the Elites will hoarde all the money.
I believe it is fair to tax the rich exponentially higher than the poor, and give it to the poor. The poor will not work because there is no need for them to. Functions will be replaced by robots, and the irony is only the rich will have to work. But the flipside is work they will do will grant them absolute power over the poor. So it is the slave who the master works for.
Besides Hindi and English, I can speak one more Indian language. That is Punjabi, which is spoken and also an official language of the state of Punjab, though I neither can read nor write it.
With love,
Sanjay
Sounds like a delicious food.
Have is past tense and so you don’t have to say “been”. You could say, “I have created the thread”, or you could say, “I am creating the thread”.
I would say something profound but then I just realized I was slurping down a cold one sitting on a couch watching football fantasizing about that cheerleader’s fat ass.
I’m unable to comment at the moment.
Is it football season already? And are there cheerleaders with fat asses? Usually cheerleaders are fit and in shape.
Has anybody an idea of the digress between technology and socio-politico-ecenomico-psychology?
That in a very few years othermworlds ill be inhabited, new terrains explored, and ticket to ride to space passengers are already at a door step?
That the poor will always be with us in any case, is a given. there will always be people who simply don’t want to work, but stare at their belly-button.
Look, at another angle. If one day, some fsmilies would realize the error of their ways, and simply get along, let bygones bem bygones, and move in with one another, some could cook, others babysit, still others drink all day, some work the fields, whatever,
some write, some go get an education, would not that be a great world? Even if like some third world immigrants can ad do this and grow to prosper?
But no, an averige teenager would rather gt a bottom tier job and get a car to impress the gitls with, then get an education, and get their own place, now who is it to blame, the government or the people they are supposed to represent?
Din’t Betty Ford form a back to family values insitution, so that this kind of message could get across? Didn’t Jimmy carter walk to the White
House, instead of beng chauffered there, to show that Americans should not take ther cars to go shopping only a block away?
Didn’t Johnston with his Great Society try something? FDR with New Deal, Kennedy,; the list goes on. The government cannot do jack s…t, without the will of the represented. Isn’t there a grain of truth here?