Of course, socialism is a bad thing, it has been responsible for killing 100 million people worldwide and it has put billions more in poverty.
In every country where true socialism was tried, it has failed.
What countries are you talking about that have a mix of socialism and capitalism? I can already tell that this is going to be good.
I edited my above post to include examples.
I think you are misunderstanding the fact that I am not talking about socialism or capitalism, I am talking about capitalism tempered with socialism. Which is what the US is, and Scandinavian countries, and all the great economies of the world.
Sadly the US is moving more towards biased capitalism without the checks and balances of socialism. Pretty soon there won't be a middle class.
Of course, socialism is a bad thing, it has been responsible for killing 100 million people worldwide and it has put billions more in poverty.
In every country where true socialism was tried, it has failed.
What countries are you talking about that have a mix of socialism and capitalism? I can already tell that this is going to be good.
I edited my above post to include examples.
I think you are misunderstanding the fact that I am not talking about socialism or capitalism, I am talking about capitalism tempered with socialism. Which is what the US is, and Scandinavian countries, and all the great economies of the world.
Sadly the US is moving more towards biased capitalism without the checks and balances of socialism. Pretty soon there won't be a middle class.
The Scandinavian countries haven't been socialist since the 1970s so you are wrong on that.
You are right about the middle class though, the Democrats are very close to completely destroying it. Free market capitalism is vastly superior to socialism.
A Gallup survey, released in May, found that fifty-one per cent of Americans believe that socialism would be a “bad thing” for the country, while forty-three per cent consider it a “good thing.” Putting it diplomatically, Gallup’s Mohamed Younis noted that American understandings of the term are “nuanced and multifaceted.”
You're part of that 51% that still runs off the fear of the Cold War. Whether or not you're old enough to remember it or your conservative parents passed it on to you, I don't know....but that is not the socialism people are talking about today, and you don't need to be scared of it.
And it certainly didn't "kill millions of people".Is that really what you think of socialism? Socialism didn't do that, autocrats did. People like Stalin and so on.
What does socialism mean? Apparently no one can agree on one definition.
The answers were all over the map. The most common responses, at twenty-three per cent, fell into the category of “no opinion” or “equal standing for everybody, all equal in rights, equal in distribution.” The next most common answer, at seventeen per cent, was “government ownership or control.” Then there were the six per cent who thought socialism meant “talking to people, being social, social media, talking to people.”
You're scared of socialism because you don't know what it means, and you let Trump dictate what it means for you.
Of course, socialism is a bad thing, it has been responsible for killing 100 million people worldwide and it has put billions more in poverty.
In every country where true socialism was tried, it has failed.
What countries are you talking about that have a mix of socialism and capitalism? I can already tell that this is going to be good.
I edited my above post to include examples.
I think you are misunderstanding the fact that I am not talking about socialism or capitalism, I am talking about capitalism tempered with socialism. Which is what the US is, and Scandinavian countries, and all the great economies of the world.
Sadly the US is moving more towards biased capitalism without the checks and balances of socialism. Pretty soon there won't be a middle class.
The Scandinavian countries haven't been socialist since the 1970s so you are wrong on that.
You are right about the middle class though, the Democrats are very close to completely destroying it. Free market capitalism is vastly superior to socialism.
Of course, socialism is a bad thing, it has been responsible for killing 100 million people worldwide and it has put billions more in poverty.
In every country where true socialism was tried, it has failed.
What countries are you talking about that have a mix of socialism and capitalism? I can already tell that this is going to be good.
I edited my above post to include examples.
I think you are misunderstanding the fact that I am not talking about socialism or capitalism, I am talking about capitalism tempered with socialism. Which is what the US is, and Scandinavian countries, and all the great economies of the world.
Sadly the US is moving more towards biased capitalism without the checks and balances of socialism. Pretty soon there won't be a middle class.
The Scandinavian countries haven't been socialist since the 1970s so you are wrong on that.
You are right about the middle class though, the Democrats are very close to completely destroying it. Free market capitalism is vastly superior to socialism.
Of course, socialism is a bad thing, it has been responsible for killing 100 million people worldwide and it has put billions more in poverty.
In every country where true socialism was tried, it has failed.
What countries are you talking about that have a mix of socialism and capitalism? I can already tell that this is going to be good.
I edited my above post to include examples.
I think you are misunderstanding the fact that I am not talking about socialism or capitalism, I am talking about capitalism tempered with socialism. Which is what the US is, and Scandinavian countries, and all the great economies of the world.
Sadly the US is moving more towards biased capitalism without the checks and balances of socialism. Pretty soon there won't be a middle class.
The Scandinavian countries haven't been socialist since the 1970s so you are wrong on that.
You are right about the middle class though, the Democrats are very close to completely destroying it. Free market capitalism is vastly superior to socialism.
Great, let's implement their policies!
Which ones?
Let's just go for the low hanging fruit: Sweden's healthcare system
I think you are misunderstanding the fact that I am not talking about socialism or capitalism, I am talking about capitalism tempered with socialism. Which is what the US is, and Scandinavian countries, and all the great economies of the world.
Sadly the US is moving more towards biased capitalism without the checks and balances of socialism. Pretty soon there won't be a middle class.
The Scandinavian countries haven't been socialist since the 1970s so you are wrong on that.
You are right about the middle class though, the Democrats are very close to completely destroying it. Free market capitalism is vastly superior to socialism.
Great, let's implement their policies!
Which ones?
Let's just go for the low hanging fruit: Sweden's healthcare system
So Sweden's healthcare system is not free, it is paid by taxpayers.
The highest income tax rate in Sweden is currently at 57.20%, everyone pays these high taxes, even the poor and middle classes. When American Democratic Socialists say they want a healthcare system like Sweden's and when they are asked how they are going to pay for it, their answer is always the same: tax the rich. The problem with this is that this is not how it works in any of the Scandinavian countries because like I said previously, they tax everyone.
In addition, Sweden has a national sales tax rate of 25% on all goods
Do you think people in the United States are going to want to pay such high taxes?
Let's just go for the low hanging fruit: Sweden's healthcare system
So Sweden's healthcare system is not free, it is paid by taxpayers.
The highest income tax rate in Sweden is currently at 57.20%, everyone pays these high taxes, even the poor and middle classes. When American Democratic Socialists say they want a healthcare system like Sweden's and when they are asked how they are going to pay for it, their answer is always the same: tax the rich. The problem with this is that this is not how it works in any of the Scandinavian countries because like I said previously, they tax everyone.
In addition, Sweden has a national sales tax rate of 25% on all goods
Do you think people in the United States are going to want to pay such high taxes?
Uh, yeah. I'm well aware of how taxpayer funded programs work. And yes, I think a lot of people would be quite happy paying higher taxes if it meant lower overall costs to them (our healthcare costs per GDP are almost double that of Sweden's, and the cost of it is overwhelmingly borne by the lower income earners/middle class).
Let's just go for the low hanging fruit: Sweden's healthcare system
So Sweden's healthcare system is not free, it is paid by taxpayers.
The highest income tax rate in Sweden is currently at 57.20%, everyone pays these high taxes, even the poor and middle classes. When American Democratic Socialists say they want a healthcare system like Sweden's and when they are asked how they are going to pay for it, their answer is always the same: tax the rich. The problem with this is that this is not how it works in any of the Scandinavian countries because like I said previously, they tax everyone.
In addition, Sweden has a national sales tax rate of 25% on all goods
Do you think people in the United States are going to want to pay such high taxes?
Uh, yeah. I'm well aware of how taxpayer funded programs work. And yes, I think a lot of people would be quite happy paying higher taxes if it meant lower overall costs to them (our healthcare costs per GDP are almost double that of Sweden's, and the cost of it is overwhelmingly borne by the lower income earners/middle class).
If you want to reduce the cost of healthcare in the United States you don't have to gut the current system nor do you have to raise taxes to astronomical levels.
All you need to do is get government out of healthcare and lessen regulations. We already have government-run healthcare in the United States, it's called the Veterans Affairs Healthcare systems and I don't need to remind on how terrible it is.
Let's just go for the low hanging fruit: Sweden's healthcare system
So Sweden's healthcare system is not free, it is paid by taxpayers.
The highest income tax rate in Sweden is currently at 57.20%, everyone pays these high taxes, even the poor and middle classes. When American Democratic Socialists say they want a healthcare system like Sweden's and when they are asked how they are going to pay for it, their answer is always the same: tax the rich. The problem with this is that this is not how it works in any of the Scandinavian countries because like I said previously, they tax everyone.
In addition, Sweden has a national sales tax rate of 25% on all goods
Do you think people in the United States are going to want to pay such high taxes?
Uh, yeah. I'm well aware of how taxpayer funded programs work. And yes, I think a lot of people would be quite happy paying higher taxes if it meant lower overall costs to them (our healthcare costs per GDP are almost double that of Sweden's, and the cost of it is overwhelmingly borne by the lower income earners/middle class).
If you want to reduce the cost of healthcare in the United States you don't have to gut the current system nor do you have to raise taxes to astronomical levels.
All you need to do is get government out of healthcare and lessen regulations. We already have government-run healthcare in the United States, it's called the Veterans Affairs Healthcare systems and I don't need to remind on how terrible it is.
Ah yes, the almighty magical God of the Republican party - "Do nothing and all your problems will go away."
LOL. Let's tell the veterans that they're we're getting rid of the VA to let them seek plans on the open and see if they approve or not.
Let's just go for the low hanging fruit: Sweden's healthcare system
So Sweden's healthcare system is not free, it is paid by taxpayers.
Who said anything about free?
Conservatives need to let this misconception go: no one thinks of it as free healthcare. It's a misnomer, just like "global warming" is to climate change. Doesn't change the fact that the argument has merit.
Moving on....
@mecha_frieza said:
The highest income tax rate in Sweden is currently at 57.20%, everyone pays these high taxes, even the poor and middle classes.
As you said, that is the highest. But not everyone pays it.
The average is much lower.
And on the subject of the highest: the top US tax rate is actually higher than the highest in Sweden.
the United States’ top personal income tax rate is higher than Norway’s top rate.
Link
The problem arises from this: the highest tax rate in Scandinavian countries are paid by those that make 1.5x the national average. In the US, it is paid by those that make 9x the national average. So while in Sweden the tax system is more comprehensive and fair (and also a lower rate, can't forget that), in the US you have this very wide margin between the middle class and the obscenely wealthy where people can essentially hide their wealth.
TL;DR: we don't need to increase tax rates, we need to increase the amount of people that pay.
@mecha_frieza said:
Do you think people in the United States are going to want to pay such high taxes?
We already pay high taxes. The problem is the tax system in the US is stupid. That doesn't mean we need to be regressive about it, however.
We need to reduce that 9x national rate to like 3x national rate, or add in a few more tax brackets, then we could actually afford to reduce taxes on the lower income people while not taxing the obscenely rich as much as they fear.
I think this is the biggest obstacle to us Americans: we cling to this notion that we are better on our own, and that everyone should fend for themselves, when in reality we could do so much better if we would just work together a little bit, pay back what is due: still maintain the beauty of capitalism, but at the same time reduce homelessness, hunger, maintain our infrastructure better (smooth roads and maintained bridges? Yes please!) and you would still have your own money at the end.
I don't know....with a smart tax system, I imagine a country where I don't need to buy train or ferry tickets. I just show my ID and hop on. I don't have to pay a parking fee when I visit a state or national park, and then an entrance fee. When I go the hospital, I just sign in and get the healthcare I need; no bills, and because the country is still mostly capitalist we would have the same great doctors getting paid well. We would have a nation of geniuses because teachers are paid a decent salary and public schools are funded well. Business ownership would sky rocket because, like Sweden, you can deduct your business's taxes from your income taxes; the middle-class would grow and grow and grow.
Let's just go for the low hanging fruit: Sweden's healthcare system
So Sweden's healthcare system is not free, it is paid by taxpayers.
The highest income tax rate in Sweden is currently at 57.20%, everyone pays these high taxes, even the poor and middle classes. When American Democratic Socialists say they want a healthcare system like Sweden's and when they are asked how they are going to pay for it, their answer is always the same: tax the rich. The problem with this is that this is not how it works in any of the Scandinavian countries because like I said previously, they tax everyone.
In addition, Sweden has a national sales tax rate of 25% on all goods
Do you think people in the United States are going to want to pay such high taxes?
Uh, yeah. I'm well aware of how taxpayer funded programs work. And yes, I think a lot of people would be quite happy paying higher taxes if it meant lower overall costs to them (our healthcare costs per GDP are almost double that of Sweden's, and the cost of it is overwhelmingly borne by the lower income earners/middle class).
If you want to reduce the cost of healthcare in the United States you don't have to gut the current system nor do you have to raise taxes to astronomical levels.
All you need to do is get government out of healthcare and lessen regulations. We already have government-run healthcare in the United States, it's called the Veterans Affairs Healthcare systems and I don't need to remind on how terrible it is.
Ah yes, the almighty magical God of the Republican party - "Do nothing and all your problems will go away."
LOL. Let's tell the veterans that they're we're getting rid of the VA to let them seek plans on the open and see if they approve or not.
I didn't say do nothing, I said get government out of healthcare and lessen regulations.
Also, as a veteran, I actually stopped going to the VA and I got my own private insurance because it was vastly superior to what the VA was offering.
America already is a socialist country, I don't see how wanting a government funded healthcare system (a model that works and is loved by the citizens of every other first-world developed country) can be a bad thing.
America already is a socialist country, I don't see how wanting a government funded healthcare system (a model that works and is loved by the citizens of every other first-world developed country) can be a bad thing.
Because we can't afford it because our government is already bloated and spending money that we don't have. Also comparing the Scandanavian countries to the U.S. is literally comparing apples and oranges- these countries could not be more different.
America already is a socialist country, I don't see how wanting a government funded healthcare system (a model that works and is loved by the citizens of every other first-world developed country) can be a bad thing.
Because we can't afford it because our government is already bloated and spending money that we don't have.
America already is a socialist country, I don't see how wanting a government funded healthcare system (a model that works and is loved by the citizens of every other first-world developed country) can be a bad thing.
Because we can't afford it because our government is already bloated and spending money that we don't have.
And yet trump increased military spending........
Biden wants to spend more on government spending than Trump.
The Scandinavian countries do not compare well with the US- it's literally an apples to oranges comparison.
What do you mean they don't compare well?
Denmark at rank 6
Sweden at 11
US at 15
Norway at 17
I'd say they rank pretty damn well relative to the US. Some even better.
You are trying to compare a set of countries that is not only a fraction of the population of the United States but who are also culturally and racially homogenous.
The U.S. is not culturally or racially homogenous, instead we have a melting pot of races and cultures in the U.S. So again, it's an apples to oranges comparison.
I’d say I feel sorry for Biden, but he doesn’t even have a decent legacy to fall back on.
Just retire already. It’s time. I mean, that video was just August - he’s diminishing at an alarming rate. What will September deliver? Comedy gold yes - but man, he’s that close to the highest position on earth. What would he be like in 3 years? Scary.
@mighty-lu-bu: Yeah, as measured by an American Libertarian think tank. Part of their definition of freedom is literally "size of government."
Yea, judging 'economic freedom' from the Cato institute is fairly moronic. Might as well give us a ranked list of 'social harmony by country' from Stormfront.
@mighty-lu-bu: Yeah, as measured by an American Libertarian think tank. Part of their definition of freedom is literally "size of government."
Yea, judging 'economic freedom' from the Cato institute is fairly moronic. Might as well give us a ranked list of 'social harmony by country' from Stormfront.
No to mention the other two libertarian groups on that study.
The Scandinavian countries do not compare well with the US- it's literally an apples to oranges comparison.
What do you mean they don't compare well?
Denmark at rank 6
Sweden at 11
US at 15
Norway at 17
I'd say they rank pretty damn well relative to the US. Some even better.
You are trying to compare a set of countries that is not only a fraction of the population of the United States but who are also culturally and racially homogenous.
The U.S. is not culturally or racially homogenous, instead we have a melting pot of races and cultures in the U.S. So again, it's an apples to oranges comparison.
Moral relativism?
The fact of the matter is that sweden and denmark are more free than the US.
Racial/Cultural diversity is irrelevant, since the free'est states also tend to be pretty diverse in population. Also, us europeans dont tend to view races in the same way americans do. We tend to racially divide our people differently. The least free states in the world, tend to also be culturally homogenous. You are right that the US is more diverse than Sweden, BUT that is a non-sequitur.
In fact, many of the pro-freedom policies came as a result of cultural diversity, such as not forcing kids to pray in school.
Being raised with diverse groups of people forces people to learn the meaning of live and let live. A value that is fundamentally important for a free society.
Log in to comment