I'm kind of glad that we've moved on from "we don't want to be like europe, it's hell there" to "well, maybe what they're doing sorta works there, but it absolutely can't here, because [insert random tidbit]." Norway has oil (this is at least a legit point) Countries are smaller they use mayo on their fries X country "isn't America" By all means, provide us with the evidence that America has a bunch of takers that the europeans don't have. Or just move on to your next random reason. I couldn't have said it better than jaygoogle. Keep telling the working poor who are struggling to get by that it's their fault.
Until the recent Muslim (ahem) "migration," Nordic countries were very ethnically homogeneous. Still are, despite the (ahem) migration. This can't be discounted when talking about national healthcare systems. A national healthcare system is much more feasible (although I won't say desirable) when you have an affluent, homogenous population -- like the Scandinavian/Nordic countries. When you have large heterogeneous populations, with varying income levels, you are going to have multiple and varying health care challenges, which tax and burden the system more, making a national healthcare system less feasible (and less desirable I would say). And yes, race realism is a thing. [Internet breaks and Clutchfans D&D implodes]
The only thing imploding is your moral fiber. Congrats on discovering your true hateful self. Please by all means tattoo it on your forehead and do the world a favor.
Wages don't grow because we keep letting in illegals as competitors in the labor pool, thus devaluing the workers that you pretend to care about, and we keep out sourcing jobs to places like you favorite communist dictatorship: China. Funny how that works. Also AOC will fizzle out because she is Palin 2.0. She will keep saying things that don't make sense and people will eventually feel ashamed to vote for crazy eyes.
We keep letting illegals in as competitors because corporations and businessmen get away with paying them less than they deserve...like Trump. If we regulated these businesses then the pay for these jobs would go up and normal citizens would find them more attractive. You said nothing about how the poor are takers and useless people though. Yes, and nothing debunks anything she's said more than memes like this... Palin can't be compared to AOC because the things AOC advocates for...people want.
Do you're explanation for why we can't have free healthcare is because...race? Yes, race realism is a thing, much like as our friend Bobby says, Flat Earth theory is a thing...both scientifically make no sense though and I'm really unsure as to how race is relevant to free healthcare at all.
What does the (ahem) mean here? Isn't it simply immigration? On it's face, this makes no sense. Essentially: if everyone is a similar race (i.e. white), healthcare is easier. How on earth is this true? I'm open to seeing evidence, if there is any. Are you saying that Scandinavian nations have fewer poor people, and therefore healthcare is easier to provide? If so, why do these so-called "socialist" nations have so few poor people? Are there so few wealthy people in America, that it can't afford universal healthcare? What does that say about American so-called "wealth"? When everyone pays into a universal healthcare system, the costs per capita are so low that the lower middle class can afford it, and it's not expensive to assist the poor with it. "I just directly said that brown people are poor and make it impossible for us to have nice things, but I'm not a racist" is a thing.
Yes people want everything free without having a way to pay for it and is dismissive of this reality. But eventually the adults have to get things done. She will continue to be ridiculous until eventually we can't take her seriously. She is popular media bait for sure. And she does know how to tap into the far left crowd. She is good at it.
The labor pool that poor immigrants are competing in are a tiny fraction of the overall labor force that has seen stagnant wages for forty years. Give you one guess which American political party has created and defended incentives for businesses exporting American jobs outside the country. Thanks for bringing it back to the OP, I was getting sidetracked. Palin "fizzled out" because she literally f*cking quit. And she was as dumb as a rock. AOC may eventually shoot herself in the foot because she courts controversy and (so far) benefits from media outrage. But the stuff she's advocating is really just ho-hum, ordinary, every-day stuff that western europe/scandinavia has been enjoying for generations. In view of what the developed world has been doing since WWII, it's not radical at all.
This isn't an argument against it. I could say that the people against 'free' things are the ones benefitting from late stage capitalism. Like at Davos how they laughed at her 70% tax policy...well, of course, they'd be against it. It would mean less money for them. The reality is...things like free healthcare have been done ins countries with less resources than us. Are you saying America isn't capable of doing what every other civilized nation has done?
Well, the mayo is a great point, but you actually know why a lot of these comparisons aren't simple one sentence one reason deals. We would really need to break that down. But let's look at America since you want to talk about takers. Who by the way are not the working poor. They are more than givers. America has a huge debt.There is one reason we shouldn't be expanding social programs. We also have more than enough people, and since we don't want more illegal immigrants, incentivizing coming here and having kids is not a good idea. You should actually look at some budgets made by the government and see where that money comes from. Where does most of it come from? Direct taxes and bonds. Bonds which ultimately need to be paid for with taxes. So I guess we could pay for all kinds of programs for a short time, but could the economy sustain it? I don't think so. But the burden of proof at this point is on the person proposing the change. You want to add universal healthcare? Show me a budget. Free college? Get your calculator out and show me that money.
Exactly. AOC is just a medium for this stuff in the end. She may go down in a ball of flames but her ideas will not. What she's advocating are not radical ideas that have never worked ever before, they are working in other countries right now today. In fact, thanks to the 'progressive' wing of the American Left, the Democratic party has taken up Free Healthcare on their platform...and when polled this is stuff people want. The idea that if you take AOC away her ideas will vanish is silly. Do I really think if Trump isn't re-elected that the GOP will drop their stance against Climate Change? No. For AOC, her ideas are out there and are being debated in the public space, she's winning this way, she's shifting the overton window on topics and the GOP is tripping over themselves attacking her ideas because they are doing anything but that.
It's totally fair of you to ask, but I'm not willing to put in the time to make a perfectly concrete case here on this forum today. I'm slow with this stuff, and good, well-researched posts take time. I hope to make a good case another day. I'll make just a couple of remarks off the cuff: dozens of nations (most of the developed world) have been getting better health outcomes for way less money per capita for decades now. There's a lot of data on the subject. A conservative think tank (Heritage?) did a long-term study on universal care and published their findings in the last year. Like everyone else, they found that it's cheaper than the current system, but since that didn't fit their narrative, they went with "OMG it will cost x trillion over ten years!!", conveniently ignoring that in their same data set, market based care costs more over the same time period. I'll also mention that numerous european nations with higher taxes and large social programs have run balanced federal budgets in recent history, something America hasn't done in a long time. The seeming impossibility of running a balanced budget is simple, if there is political and cultural will: raise taxes. Germany, for example, has higher taxes, a generous welfare state, generous unemployment benefits, strong unions, superior transportation infrastructure, universal healthcare (through an Obamacare-on-steroids private system), publicly funded elections, free or damn cheap college for all, and a balanced federal budget. https://www.reuters.com/article/germany-budget-idUSL5N1GN41Z
No, it's not, it's what you call a capitalist welfare state. There is nothing "mixed" about their economy. Anyway, there's no point in arguing with a socialism apologist any more than there is a point arguing with a Nazi apologist. Feel free to keep your extremist views and educated people will laugh at you for it. Suggesting that the Nordic countries are "more socialist" than America is similar to saying that a golf ball is "more of an egg" than a football is.
"The Norwegian economy is an example of a mixed economy, a prosperous capitalist welfare state and social democracy country featuring a combination of free market activity and large state ownership in certain key sectors." Source: Wikipedia You really call the above an argument? All you did was insult and then compare socialism to nazism which is absolutely stupid. It should continue, I've not seen many counters except "Socialism is bad because...it's bad!" arguments. You did at least try to argue against it so that's cool.
First of all yes the Nazis were technically socialists and were on a central-planned "mixed model." Some of which ended up getting privitized later but were basically collaborators with the government. Take from that what you will. They have a weird case and I don't really want to throw out there that all socialists are nazis. Second, you can't have the state run things in the U.S. It just doesn't go well. Socialism is a beautiful theory, but in practice it is doomed to end poorly because of power dynamics and the human element. We are greedy, and we like to own things, and we like power. We will fight for these things. These issues always doom socialism and communism. Do we really want our businesses to be political? Because that is what you will get. They will turn into bureaucracies with political ties and deeper connections (more connections than we see now). That won't be nearly as nimble and reactive as the free market. I can't really believe that we are still having to argue the free market versus the government. No, the people should not sieze the means of production. That is just too close to communism bud. I don't think Norway will keep doing so well, since they shifted right politically in response to the problems they have been having. Time will tell on that country, but I imagine more problems in the future. It wasn't but a few years ago everyone was hot for Venezuela, and touting it as a true example of socialism. Then when it failed, we got to hear all the excuses and changes. It wasn't real socialism. It was the oil price! It was the USA and the evil capitalists! Grrrr! Once Norway is finished economically, I can't wait for people like Jay to say "it wasn't a real mixed-model."
