Commie Sanders asked about socialist mess in Venezuela - REFUSES COMMENT

[Billy000]

The democrat's grand plan on economics - "We take money from the businesses and give it to the people, and we'll all be rich".

What you people are too dumb to understand is that just because a socialist country might be a failure, it doesn't mean the idea of socialism is a failure. Denmark has a much lower poverty rate than the US. The work week is shorter. The percentage of people employed is higher. Wages are overall higher. It's also the number one place for business in the world.

Beyond that, the US has always been socialist. Our economy isn't a free market one - it's a mixed economy. Our defense department is biggest socialist institution in the world.

You're a joke.

Our military is not even close to being socialist.

Denmark is not a Socialist Country. It has a population of far fewer citizens than the city of New York. Any comparison between the United States, 330 million people, and Denmark is a show of desperation on the part of Socialists.

For your future reference:
so·cial·ism
(sō′shə-lĭz′əm)
n.
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which the means of production are collectively owned but a completely classless society has not yet been achieved.
B

What you people are too dumb to understand is that just because a socialist country might be a failure, it doesn't mean the idea of socialism is a failure. Denmark has a much lower poverty rate than the US. The work week is shorter. The percentage of people employed is higher. Wages are overall higher. It's also the number one place for business in the world.

Beyond that, the US has always been socialist. Our economy isn't a free market one - it's a mixed economy. Our defense department is biggest socialist institution in the world.

You're a joke.

Our military is not even close to being socialist.

Denmark is not a Socialist Country. It has a population of far fewer citizens than the city of New York. Any comparison between the United States, 330 million people, and Denmark is a show of desperation on the part of Socialists.

For your future reference:
so·cial·ism
(sō′shə-lĭz′əm)
n.
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which the means of production are collectively owned but a completely classless society has not yet been achieved.
B

You're such an idiot. Your first defintion is a complete contradiction. The first definition says "owned...by a centralized government." While that may happen in some countries, it isn't a defining characteristic of socialism. The word, at its core meaning, means social ownership. As in the CITIZENS OWN IT. As in, it is paid for with their tax dollars. The citizens in ANY country that pay taxes for services are examples of SOCIALISM. That is what your definitions means by the "collective".

This is why it is so difficult to discuss something with a Progressive. They have their own definitions for so many things.

Your statement that citizens who gather together to pay taxes for services, make them Socialists. Flat out LIE.

It is a shame they didn't teach civics when you were in school or the basic economies of the world. Follow me and I'll try to bring you along a bit.

See what you're too stupid to understand is that socialism has nothing to do with totalitarian government. Sure a government like that may have a socialist system, but that doesn't mean that the totalitarian regime has anything to do with the country being socialist. So yeah, any system that is funded by tax payers is socialist. SOCIAL, COLLECTIVE OWNERSHIP. That is what the meaning of the word is at its core.

Once again...I'll paste S-L-O-W-L-Y.

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production;[10] as well as the political ideologies, theories, and movements that aim at their establishment.[11] Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective, or cooperative ownership; to citizen ownership of equity; or to any combination of these.[12] Although there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[13] social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.

Your inability to accept FACTS and the TRUTH is not surprising. Like all Progressives, you just swallow whatever sounds and FEELS good regardless of the FACTS. A well-known trait of Progressives.

Lol you're such a moron. You don't even know the meaning of what you just posted. I want you to read that paragraph you just cited and actually think about its meaning. It confirms everything I said lol

 

[Pumpkin Row]

The democrat's grand plan on economics - "We take money from the businesses and give it to the people, and we'll all be rich".

Bernie Sanders Asked About Failures of Socialism in Venezuela and Refuses to Comment

may 27 2016 LEÓN KRAUZE, UNIVISION: I am sure that you know about this topic: various leftist governments, especially the populists, are in serious trouble in Latin America. The socialist model in Venezuela has the country near collapse. Argentina, also Brazil, how do you explain that failure?

BERNIE SANDERS, DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE: You are asking me questions…

LEÓN KRAUZE, UNIVISION: I am sure you’re interested in that.

BERNIE SANDERS, DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE: I am very interested, but right now I’m running for President of the United States.

LEÓN KRAUZE, UNIVISION: So you don’t have an opinion about the crisis in Venezuela?

BERNIE SANDERS, DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE: Of course I have an opinion, but as I said, I’m focused on my campaign.

What you people are too dumb to understand is that just because a socialist country might be a failure, it doesn't mean the idea of socialism is a failure. Denmark has a much lower poverty rate than the US. The work week is shorter. The percentage of people employed is higher. Wages are overall higher. It's also the number one place for business in the world.

Beyond that, the US has always been socialist. Our economy isn't a free market one - it's a mixed economy. Our defense department is biggest socialist institution in the world.

You're a joke.

Our military is not even close to being socialist.

Denmark is not a Socialist Country. It has a population of far fewer citizens than the city of New York. Any comparison between the United States, 330 million people, and Denmark is a show of desperation on the part of Socialists.

For your future reference:
so·cial·ism
(sō′shə-lĭz′əm)
n.
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which the means of production are collectively owned but a completely classless society has not yet been achieved.
B

The democrat's grand plan on economics - "We take money from the businesses and give it to the people, and we'll all be rich".

What you people are too dumb to understand is that just because a socialist country might be a failure, it doesn't mean the idea of socialism is a failure. Denmark has a much lower poverty rate than the US. The work week is shorter. The percentage of people employed is higher. Wages are overall higher. It's also the number one place for business in the world.

Beyond that, the US has always been socialist. Our economy isn't a free market one - it's a mixed economy. Our defense department is biggest socialist institution in the world.

You're a joke.

Our military is not even close to being socialist.

Denmark is not a Socialist Country. It has a population of far fewer citizens than the city of New York. Any comparison between the United States, 330 million people, and Denmark is a show of desperation on the part of Socialists.

For your future reference:
so·cial·ism
(sō′shə-lĭz′əm)
n.
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which the means of production are collectively owned but a completely classless society has not yet been achieved.
B

You're such an idiot. Your first defintion is a complete contradiction. The first definition says "owned...by a centralized government." While that may happen in some countries, it isn't a defining characteristic of socialism. The word, at its core meaning, means social ownership. As in the CITIZENS OWN IT. As in, it is paid for with their tax dollars. The citizens in ANY country that pay taxes for services are examples of SOCIALISM. That is what your definitions means by the "collective".

This is why it is so difficult to discuss something with a Progressive. They have their own definitions for so many things.

Your statement that citizens who gather together to pay taxes for services, make them Socialists. Flat out LIE.

It is a shame they didn't teach civics when you were in school or the basic economies of the world. Follow me and I'll try to bring you along a bit.

See what you're too stupid to understand is that socialism has nothing to do with totalitarian government. Sure a government like that may have a socialist system, but that doesn't mean that the totalitarian regime has anything to do with the country being socialist. So yeah, any system that is funded by tax payers is socialist. SOCIAL, COLLECTIVE OWNERSHIP. That is what the meaning of the word is at its core.

You're not entirely wrong, just 90% wrong. No, a Socialist government doesn't have to be totalitarian, it only has to be if they want to stay Socialist. Once the economy starts to crash as the effects of a vastly superior economic system subside, people will realize what a mistake allowing the government to take control of, or replace the businesses was. At that point, people will speak out against it, but the government won't want to give up their power, so they will disarm citizens, censor media, take away rights, and silence the people before the full impact of what's happening sets in. With any Socialist nation, it's only a matter of time.

 

[pwjohn]

The democrat's grand plan on economics - "We take money from the businesses and give it to the people, and we'll all be rich".

Bernie Sanders Asked About Failures of Socialism in Venezuela and Refuses to Comment

may 27 2016 LEÓN KRAUZE, UNIVISION: I am sure that you know about this topic: various leftist governments, especially the populists, are in serious trouble in Latin America. The socialist model in Venezuela has the country near collapse. Argentina, also Brazil, how do you explain that failure?

BERNIE SANDERS, DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE: You are asking me questions…

LEÓN KRAUZE, UNIVISION: I am sure you’re interested in that.

BERNIE SANDERS, DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE: I am very interested, but right now I’m running for President of the United States.

LEÓN KRAUZE, UNIVISION: So you don’t have an opinion about the crisis in Venezuela?

BERNIE SANDERS, DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE: Of course I have an opinion, but as I said, I’m focused on my campaign.

Crapazeula will never realize their wealth in oil. And without that, they're just another banana republic.

 

[Billy000]

What you people are too dumb to understand is that just because a socialist country might be a failure, it doesn't mean the idea of socialism is a failure. Denmark has a much lower poverty rate than the US. The work week is shorter. The percentage of people employed is higher. Wages are overall higher. It's also the number one place for business in the world.

Beyond that, the US has always been socialist. Our economy isn't a free market one - it's a mixed economy. Our defense department is biggest socialist institution in the world.

Wow Rush talks about people like that.....you proved him right.


First thank you for admitting CHAVEZ was a huuuuuuge failure

But socialism doesn't work......because you can't have a country with most people on the government dole...even Scandinavia countries are going through austerity...

Uh no actually. Denmark, economically, is superior to the US in many ways. The wages are overall higher. The percentage of people employed is higher. The average work week is shorter. It's the number one country to do business.

Not true.

Free Universities And No Student Loan Debt Is Hurting Denmark's Economy

• Soeren Billing, Agence France Presse

• Jun. 18, 2014, 7:37 AM

No tuition fees and generous grants give young Danes an opportunity that would make most green with envy -- a university education without a massive debt yoke.

But many, in both industry and politics, feel it's become a free lunch that's giving indigestion to Scandinavia's already weakest economy.

Too many pursue "fulfilment" and too few the science and engineering degrees needed in well-paid growth sectors critical for the nation's future, they say.

Typical is 23-year-old Ali Badreldin, who is enrolled at the Royal Danish Academy of Music to become a saxophone player. "Music was always part of my life growing up so it was a natural choice," he said.

His courses are free and he gets a monthly stipend of 5,839 DKK (782 euros, $1,074) in a system where class sizes are rarely limited.

The result has Denmark spending more proportionally on education than any other country in the OECD club of 34 advanced nations.

Yet biotech firms like Novozymes say they cannot find enough engineers.

Engineering opportunities have soared in recent years in Denmark, but its youth have shunned the sector, with only one-third the OECD average contemplating an engineering career amid top-heavy enrolment in arts and humanities programmes.

Read more: Free Universities And No Student Loan Debt Is Hurting Denmark's Economy

Lol this article is such a joke. For one thing, even despite Danish wages being higher after taxes, the Danes still pay more in taxes. That is how this education is paid for. Also, the premise of this article is so fallacious that it's laughable. It's claiming that the lack of pursuit in science degrees is BECAUSE tuition is free. That doesn't even make any sense. How do you not see that?

Why doesn't it make sense?

Why take a hard class when you get a job and don't have to work? Why not take music or art?
People do that here, and then bitch when they don't get a job, imagine if you could get a job doing nothing.....

Except that the article even states that science degrees pay more lol. They are a better investment for the time spent in school. The article is pure conjecture. There is no proof to this. It was made by some conservative retard living in the US anyway. More than likely the reason why science degrees are less pursued is because they are simply more difficult to achieve. Fewer people would be interested in them if most wouldn't be smart enough for them. You will find that problem all over the world.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

The democrat's grand plan on economics - "We take money from the businesses and give it to the people, and we'll all be rich".

What you people are too dumb to understand is that just because a socialist country might be a failure, it doesn't mean the idea of socialism is a failure. Denmark has a much lower poverty rate than the US. The work week is shorter. The percentage of people employed is higher. Wages are overall higher. It's also the number one place for business in the world.

Beyond that, the US has always been socialist. Our economy isn't a free market one - it's a mixed economy. Our defense department is biggest socialist institution in the world.

Wow Rush talks about people like that.....you proved him right.


First thank you for admitting CHAVEZ was a huuuuuuge failure

But socialism doesn't work......because you can't have a country with most people on the government dole...even Scandinavia countries are going through austerity...

Uh no actually. Denmark, economically, is superior to the US in many ways. The wages are overall higher. The percentage of people employed is higher. The average work week is shorter. It's the number one country to do business.

Not true.

Free Universities And No Student Loan Debt Is Hurting Denmark's Economy

• Soeren Billing, Agence France Presse

• Jun. 18, 2014, 7:37 AM

No tuition fees and generous grants give young Danes an opportunity that would make most green with envy -- a university education without a massive debt yoke.

But many, in both industry and politics, feel it's become a free lunch that's giving indigestion to Scandinavia's already weakest economy.

Too many pursue "fulfilment" and too few the science and engineering degrees needed in well-paid growth sectors critical for the nation's future, they say.

Typical is 23-year-old Ali Badreldin, who is enrolled at the Royal Danish Academy of Music to become a saxophone player. "Music was always part of my life growing up so it was a natural choice," he said.

His courses are free and he gets a monthly stipend of 5,839 DKK (782 euros, $1,074) in a system where class sizes are rarely limited.

The result has Denmark spending more proportionally on education than any other country in the OECD club of 34 advanced nations.

Yet biotech firms like Novozymes say they cannot find enough engineers.

Engineering opportunities have soared in recent years in Denmark, but its youth have shunned the sector, with only one-third the OECD average contemplating an engineering career amid top-heavy enrolment in arts and humanities programmes.

Read more: Free Universities And No Student Loan Debt Is Hurting Denmark's Economy

Lol this article is such a joke. For one thing, even despite Danish wages being higher after taxes, the Danes still pay more in taxes. That is how this education is paid for. Also, the premise of this article is so fallacious that it's laughable. It's claiming that the lack of pursuit in science degrees is BECAUSE tuition is free. That doesn't even make any sense. How do you not see that?

The pursuit of any degree would be effected, because the more people that have a degree, the less valuable it is. Something is more valuable if fewer people have it, that's why things on Ebay go up in price as they go out of production.

 

[buckeye45_73]

World-Beating Debt Burden Is No ‘Serious Threat’ to Denmark

not good....Danish households owe their creditors 321 percent of disposable incomes, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

 

[Billy000]

The democrat's grand plan on economics - "We take money from the businesses and give it to the people, and we'll all be rich".

What you people are too dumb to understand is that just because a socialist country might be a failure, it doesn't mean the idea of socialism is a failure. Denmark has a much lower poverty rate than the US. The work week is shorter. The percentage of people employed is higher. Wages are overall higher. It's also the number one place for business in the world.

Beyond that, the US has always been socialist. Our economy isn't a free market one - it's a mixed economy. Our defense department is biggest socialist institution in the world.

You're a joke.

Our military is not even close to being socialist.

Denmark is not a Socialist Country. It has a population of far fewer citizens than the city of New York. Any comparison between the United States, 330 million people, and Denmark is a show of desperation on the part of Socialists.

For your future reference:
so·cial·ism
(sō′shə-lĭz′əm)
n.
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which the means of production are collectively owned but a completely classless society has not yet been achieved.
B

What you people are too dumb to understand is that just because a socialist country might be a failure, it doesn't mean the idea of socialism is a failure. Denmark has a much lower poverty rate than the US. The work week is shorter. The percentage of people employed is higher. Wages are overall higher. It's also the number one place for business in the world.

Beyond that, the US has always been socialist. Our economy isn't a free market one - it's a mixed economy. Our defense department is biggest socialist institution in the world.

You're a joke.

Our military is not even close to being socialist.

Denmark is not a Socialist Country. It has a population of far fewer citizens than the city of New York. Any comparison between the United States, 330 million people, and Denmark is a show of desperation on the part of Socialists.

For your future reference:
so·cial·ism
(sō′shə-lĭz′əm)
n.
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which the means of production are collectively owned but a completely classless society has not yet been achieved.
B

You're such an idiot. Your first defintion is a complete contradiction. The first definition says "owned...by a centralized government." While that may happen in some countries, it isn't a defining characteristic of socialism. The word, at its core meaning, means social ownership. As in the CITIZENS OWN IT. As in, it is paid for with their tax dollars. The citizens in ANY country that pay taxes for services are examples of SOCIALISM. That is what your definitions means by the "collective".

This is why it is so difficult to discuss something with a Progressive. They have their own definitions for so many things.

Your statement that citizens who gather together to pay taxes for services, make them Socialists. Flat out LIE.

It is a shame they didn't teach civics when you were in school or the basic economies of the world. Follow me and I'll try to bring you along a bit.

See what you're too stupid to understand is that socialism has nothing to do with totalitarian government. Sure a government like that may have a socialist system, but that doesn't mean that the totalitarian regime has anything to do with the country being socialist. So yeah, any system that is funded by tax payers is socialist. SOCIAL, COLLECTIVE OWNERSHIP. That is what the meaning of the word is at its core.

You're not entirely wrong, just 90% wrong. No, a Socialist government doesn't have to be totalitarian, it only has to be if they want to stay Socialist. Once the economy starts to crash as the effects of a vastly superior economic system subside, people will realize what a mistake allowing the government to take control of, or replace the businesses was. At that point, people will speak out against it, but the government won't want to give up their power, so they will disarm citizens, censor media, take away rights, and silence the people before the full impact of what's happening sets in. With any Socialist nation, it's only a matter of time.

See this is an example of you cons saying a bunch of fluff. Just because you say something that sounds like it could be true, it doesn't mean it actually is true.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Wow Rush talks about people like that.....you proved him right.


First thank you for admitting CHAVEZ was a huuuuuuge failure

But socialism doesn't work......because you can't have a country with most people on the government dole...even Scandinavia countries are going through austerity...

Uh no actually. Denmark, economically, is superior to the US in many ways. The wages are overall higher. The percentage of people employed is higher. The average work week is shorter. It's the number one country to do business.

Not true.

Free Universities And No Student Loan Debt Is Hurting Denmark's Economy

• Soeren Billing, Agence France Presse

• Jun. 18, 2014, 7:37 AM

No tuition fees and generous grants give young Danes an opportunity that would make most green with envy -- a university education without a massive debt yoke.

But many, in both industry and politics, feel it's become a free lunch that's giving indigestion to Scandinavia's already weakest economy.

Too many pursue "fulfilment" and too few the science and engineering degrees needed in well-paid growth sectors critical for the nation's future, they say.

Typical is 23-year-old Ali Badreldin, who is enrolled at the Royal Danish Academy of Music to become a saxophone player. "Music was always part of my life growing up so it was a natural choice," he said.

His courses are free and he gets a monthly stipend of 5,839 DKK (782 euros, $1,074) in a system where class sizes are rarely limited.

The result has Denmark spending more proportionally on education than any other country in the OECD club of 34 advanced nations.

Yet biotech firms like Novozymes say they cannot find enough engineers.

Engineering opportunities have soared in recent years in Denmark, but its youth have shunned the sector, with only one-third the OECD average contemplating an engineering career amid top-heavy enrolment in arts and humanities programmes.

Read more: Free Universities And No Student Loan Debt Is Hurting Denmark's Economy

Lol this article is such a joke. For one thing, even despite Danish wages being higher after taxes, the Danes still pay more in taxes. That is how this education is paid for. Also, the premise of this article is so fallacious that it's laughable. It's claiming that the lack of pursuit in science degrees is BECAUSE tuition is free. That doesn't even make any sense. How do you not see that?

Why doesn't it make sense?

Why take a hard class when you get a job and don't have to work? Why not take music or art?
People do that here, and then bitch when they don't get a job, imagine if you could get a job doing nothing.....

Except that the article even states that science degrees pay more lol. They are a better investment for the time spent in school. The article is pure conjecture. There is no proof to this. It was made by some conservative retard living in the US anyway. More than likely the reason why science degrees are less pursued is because they are simply more difficult to achieve. Fewer people would be interested in them if most wouldn't be smart enough for them. You will find that problem all over the world.

So that's the reason Asians and whitey dominate the science market....we're smarter than Hispanics, blacks, pre whitey Americans and others?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

What you people are too dumb to understand is that just because a socialist country might be a failure, it doesn't mean the idea of socialism is a failure. Denmark has a much lower poverty rate than the US. The work week is shorter. The percentage of people employed is higher. Wages are overall higher. It's also the number one place for business in the world.

Beyond that, the US has always been socialist. Our economy isn't a free market one - it's a mixed economy. Our defense department is biggest socialist institution in the world.

You're a joke.

Our military is not even close to being socialist.

Denmark is not a Socialist Country. It has a population of far fewer citizens than the city of New York. Any comparison between the United States, 330 million people, and Denmark is a show of desperation on the part of Socialists.

For your future reference:
so·cial·ism
(sō′shə-lĭz′əm)
n.
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which the means of production are collectively owned but a completely classless society has not yet been achieved.
B

You're a joke.

Our military is not even close to being socialist.

Denmark is not a Socialist Country. It has a population of far fewer citizens than the city of New York. Any comparison between the United States, 330 million people, and Denmark is a show of desperation on the part of Socialists.

For your future reference:
so·cial·ism
(sō′shə-lĭz′əm)
n.
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which the means of production are collectively owned but a completely classless society has not yet been achieved.
B

You're such an idiot. Your first defintion is a complete contradiction. The first definition says "owned...by a centralized government." While that may happen in some countries, it isn't a defining characteristic of socialism. The word, at its core meaning, means social ownership. As in the CITIZENS OWN IT. As in, it is paid for with their tax dollars. The citizens in ANY country that pay taxes for services are examples of SOCIALISM. That is what your definitions means by the "collective".

This is why it is so difficult to discuss something with a Progressive. They have their own definitions for so many things.

Your statement that citizens who gather together to pay taxes for services, make them Socialists. Flat out LIE.

It is a shame they didn't teach civics when you were in school or the basic economies of the world. Follow me and I'll try to bring you along a bit.

See what you're too stupid to understand is that socialism has nothing to do with totalitarian government. Sure a government like that may have a socialist system, but that doesn't mean that the totalitarian regime has anything to do with the country being socialist. So yeah, any system that is funded by tax payers is socialist. SOCIAL, COLLECTIVE OWNERSHIP. That is what the meaning of the word is at its core.

You're not entirely wrong, just 90% wrong. No, a Socialist government doesn't have to be totalitarian, it only has to be if they want to stay Socialist. Once the economy starts to crash as the effects of a vastly superior economic system subside, people will realize what a mistake allowing the government to take control of, or replace the businesses was. At that point, people will speak out against it, but the government won't want to give up their power, so they will disarm citizens, censor media, take away rights, and silence the people before the full impact of what's happening sets in. With any Socialist nation, it's only a matter of time.

See this is an example of you cons saying a bunch of fluff. Just because you say something that sounds like it could be true, it doesn't mean it actually is true.

Then how about actually debating instead of blustering at me?

 

[buckeye45_73]

What you people are too dumb to understand is that just because a socialist country might be a failure, it doesn't mean the idea of socialism is a failure. Denmark has a much lower poverty rate than the US. The work week is shorter. The percentage of people employed is higher. Wages are overall higher. It's also the number one place for business in the world.

Beyond that, the US has always been socialist. Our economy isn't a free market one - it's a mixed economy. Our defense department is biggest socialist institution in the world.

You're a joke.

Our military is not even close to being socialist.

Denmark is not a Socialist Country. It has a population of far fewer citizens than the city of New York. Any comparison between the United States, 330 million people, and Denmark is a show of desperation on the part of Socialists.

For your future reference:
so·cial·ism
(sō′shə-lĭz′əm)
n.
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which the means of production are collectively owned but a completely classless society has not yet been achieved.
B

You're a joke.

Our military is not even close to being socialist.

Denmark is not a Socialist Country. It has a population of far fewer citizens than the city of New York. Any comparison between the United States, 330 million people, and Denmark is a show of desperation on the part of Socialists.

For your future reference:
so·cial·ism
(sō′shə-lĭz′əm)
n.
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which the means of production are collectively owned but a completely classless society has not yet been achieved.
B

You're such an idiot. Your first defintion is a complete contradiction. The first definition says "owned...by a centralized government." While that may happen in some countries, it isn't a defining characteristic of socialism. The word, at its core meaning, means social ownership. As in the CITIZENS OWN IT. As in, it is paid for with their tax dollars. The citizens in ANY country that pay taxes for services are examples of SOCIALISM. That is what your definitions means by the "collective".

This is why it is so difficult to discuss something with a Progressive. They have their own definitions for so many things.

Your statement that citizens who gather together to pay taxes for services, make them Socialists. Flat out LIE.

It is a shame they didn't teach civics when you were in school or the basic economies of the world. Follow me and I'll try to bring you along a bit.

See what you're too stupid to understand is that socialism has nothing to do with totalitarian government. Sure a government like that may have a socialist system, but that doesn't mean that the totalitarian regime has anything to do with the country being socialist. So yeah, any system that is funded by tax payers is socialist. SOCIAL, COLLECTIVE OWNERSHIP. That is what the meaning of the word is at its core.

You're not entirely wrong, just 90% wrong. No, a Socialist government doesn't have to be totalitarian, it only has to be if they want to stay Socialist. Once the economy starts to crash as the effects of a vastly superior economic system subside, people will realize what a mistake allowing the government to take control of, or replace the businesses was. At that point, people will speak out against it, but the government won't want to give up their power, so they will disarm citizens, censor media, take away rights, and silence the people before the full impact of what's happening sets in. With any Socialist nation, it's only a matter of time.

See this is an example of you cons saying a bunch of fluff. Just because you say something that sounds like it could be true, it doesn't mean it actually is true.

You don't think supply and demand effect price, cost, or income?

 

[Billy000]

World-Beating Debt Burden Is No ‘Serious Threat’ to Denmark

not good....Danish households owe their creditors 321 percent of disposable incomes, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

Oh gee. How much do you think Americans owe to their collectors? Funny how you made no comparison. Of course none of this changes the fact that the people of Denmark rank as the happiest people in the world.

I love it when you cons resort to random googling just to try to win an argument. It is so laughable. Don't pretend like you already knew this article existed before you googled it lol

 

[buckeye45_73]

You're a joke.

Our military is not even close to being socialist.

Denmark is not a Socialist Country. It has a population of far fewer citizens than the city of New York. Any comparison between the United States, 330 million people, and Denmark is a show of desperation on the part of Socialists.

For your future reference:
so·cial·ism
(sō′shə-lĭz′əm)
n.
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which the means of production are collectively owned but a completely classless society has not yet been achieved.
B

You're such an idiot. Your first defintion is a complete contradiction. The first definition says "owned...by a centralized government." While that may happen in some countries, it isn't a defining characteristic of socialism. The word, at its core meaning, means social ownership. As in the CITIZENS OWN IT. As in, it is paid for with their tax dollars. The citizens in ANY country that pay taxes for services are examples of SOCIALISM. That is what your definitions means by the "collective".

This is why it is so difficult to discuss something with a Progressive. They have their own definitions for so many things.

Your statement that citizens who gather together to pay taxes for services, make them Socialists. Flat out LIE.

It is a shame they didn't teach civics when you were in school or the basic economies of the world. Follow me and I'll try to bring you along a bit.

See what you're too stupid to understand is that socialism has nothing to do with totalitarian government. Sure a government like that may have a socialist system, but that doesn't mean that the totalitarian regime has anything to do with the country being socialist. So yeah, any system that is funded by tax payers is socialist. SOCIAL, COLLECTIVE OWNERSHIP. That is what the meaning of the word is at its core.

You're not entirely wrong, just 90% wrong. No, a Socialist government doesn't have to be totalitarian, it only has to be if they want to stay Socialist. Once the economy starts to crash as the effects of a vastly superior economic system subside, people will realize what a mistake allowing the government to take control of, or replace the businesses was. At that point, people will speak out against it, but the government won't want to give up their power, so they will disarm citizens, censor media, take away rights, and silence the people before the full impact of what's happening sets in. With any Socialist nation, it's only a matter of time.

See this is an example of you cons saying a bunch of fluff. Just because you say something that sounds like it could be true, it doesn't mean it actually is true.

Then how about actually debating instead of blustering at me?

He put out an article that didn't even read it's own facts correctly, and it just showed they spent more on welfare programs....and worked less.....and I'm supposed to be moved that it's a better system.

 

[Billy000]

You're a joke.

Our military is not even close to being socialist.

Denmark is not a Socialist Country. It has a population of far fewer citizens than the city of New York. Any comparison between the United States, 330 million people, and Denmark is a show of desperation on the part of Socialists.

For your future reference:
so·cial·ism
(sō′shə-lĭz′əm)
n.
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which the means of production are collectively owned but a completely classless society has not yet been achieved.
B

You're such an idiot. Your first defintion is a complete contradiction. The first definition says "owned...by a centralized government." While that may happen in some countries, it isn't a defining characteristic of socialism. The word, at its core meaning, means social ownership. As in the CITIZENS OWN IT. As in, it is paid for with their tax dollars. The citizens in ANY country that pay taxes for services are examples of SOCIALISM. That is what your definitions means by the "collective".

This is why it is so difficult to discuss something with a Progressive. They have their own definitions for so many things.

Your statement that citizens who gather together to pay taxes for services, make them Socialists. Flat out LIE.

It is a shame they didn't teach civics when you were in school or the basic economies of the world. Follow me and I'll try to bring you along a bit.

See what you're too stupid to understand is that socialism has nothing to do with totalitarian government. Sure a government like that may have a socialist system, but that doesn't mean that the totalitarian regime has anything to do with the country being socialist. So yeah, any system that is funded by tax payers is socialist. SOCIAL, COLLECTIVE OWNERSHIP. That is what the meaning of the word is at its core.

You're not entirely wrong, just 90% wrong. No, a Socialist government doesn't have to be totalitarian, it only has to be if they want to stay Socialist. Once the economy starts to crash as the effects of a vastly superior economic system subside, people will realize what a mistake allowing the government to take control of, or replace the businesses was. At that point, people will speak out against it, but the government won't want to give up their power, so they will disarm citizens, censor media, take away rights, and silence the people before the full impact of what's happening sets in. With any Socialist nation, it's only a matter of time.

See this is an example of you cons saying a bunch of fluff. Just because you say something that sounds like it could be true, it doesn't mean it actually is true.

Then how about actually debating instead of blustering at me?

The point I am trying to make here is that what you posted here is complete fluff. You're just making shit up. What you're saying has nothing to do with the actual defintion of socialism. It's not like you even give real world examples and explain how this fluff relates to the actual definition of socialism.

 

[buckeye45_73]

World-Beating Debt Burden Is No ‘Serious Threat’ to Denmark

not good....Danish households owe their creditors 321 percent of disposable incomes, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

Oh gee. How much do you think Americans owe to their collectors? Funny how you made no comparison. Of course none of this changes the fact that the people of Denmark rank as the happiest people in the world.

I love it when you cons resort to random googling just to try to win an argument. It is so laughable. Don't pretend like you already knew this article existed before you googled it lol

How can you empirically measure happiness?
Happiness is not scientific. it's a feeling....some people are poor as dirt and are happy, anyone can be happy or unhappy.

as for debt
Household accounts - Household debt - OECD Data

US-113
Denmark-308


waaayy more, Id be happy if I don't work much, get paid and then can rack up debt....

At some point you'll figure out you can not sustain that.

 

[Billy000]

Uh no actually. Denmark, economically, is superior to the US in many ways. The wages are overall higher. The percentage of people employed is higher. The average work week is shorter. It's the number one country to do business.

Not true.

Free Universities And No Student Loan Debt Is Hurting Denmark's Economy

• Soeren Billing, Agence France Presse

• Jun. 18, 2014, 7:37 AM

No tuition fees and generous grants give young Danes an opportunity that would make most green with envy -- a university education without a massive debt yoke.

But many, in both industry and politics, feel it's become a free lunch that's giving indigestion to Scandinavia's already weakest economy.

Too many pursue "fulfilment" and too few the science and engineering degrees needed in well-paid growth sectors critical for the nation's future, they say.

Typical is 23-year-old Ali Badreldin, who is enrolled at the Royal Danish Academy of Music to become a saxophone player. "Music was always part of my life growing up so it was a natural choice," he said.

His courses are free and he gets a monthly stipend of 5,839 DKK (782 euros, $1,074) in a system where class sizes are rarely limited.

The result has Denmark spending more proportionally on education than any other country in the OECD club of 34 advanced nations.

Yet biotech firms like Novozymes say they cannot find enough engineers.

Engineering opportunities have soared in recent years in Denmark, but its youth have shunned the sector, with only one-third the OECD average contemplating an engineering career amid top-heavy enrolment in arts and humanities programmes.

Read more: Free Universities And No Student Loan Debt Is Hurting Denmark's Economy

Lol this article is such a joke. For one thing, even despite Danish wages being higher after taxes, the Danes still pay more in taxes. That is how this education is paid for. Also, the premise of this article is so fallacious that it's laughable. It's claiming that the lack of pursuit in science degrees is BECAUSE tuition is free. That doesn't even make any sense. How do you not see that?

Why doesn't it make sense?

Why take a hard class when you get a job and don't have to work? Why not take music or art?
People do that here, and then bitch when they don't get a job, imagine if you could get a job doing nothing.....

Except that the article even states that science degrees pay more lol. They are a better investment for the time spent in school. The article is pure conjecture. There is no proof to this. It was made by some conservative retard living in the US anyway. More than likely the reason why science degrees are less pursued is because they are simply more difficult to achieve. Fewer people would be interested in them if most wouldn't be smart enough for them. You will find that problem all over the world.

So that's the reason Asians and whitey dominate the science market....we're smarter than Hispanics, blacks, pre whitey Americans and others?

I'm sorry do you not understand what ethnicity is dominant in Denmark?

 

[Markle]

The democrat's grand plan on economics - "We take money from the businesses and give it to the people, and we'll all be rich".

What you people are too dumb to understand is that just because a socialist country might be a failure, it doesn't mean the idea of socialism is a failure. Denmark has a much lower poverty rate than the US. The work week is shorter. The percentage of people employed is higher. Wages are overall higher. It's also the number one place for business in the world.

Beyond that, the US has always been socialist. Our economy isn't a free market one - it's a mixed economy. Our defense department is biggest socialist institution in the world.

Wow Rush talks about people like that.....you proved him right.


First thank you for admitting CHAVEZ was a huuuuuuge failure

But socialism doesn't work......because you can't have a country with most people on the government dole...even Scandinavia countries are going through austerity...

Uh no actually. Denmark, economically, is superior to the US in many ways. The wages are overall higher. The percentage of people employed is higher. The average work week is shorter. It's the number one country to do business.

Not true.

Free Universities And No Student Loan Debt Is Hurting Denmark's Economy

• Soeren Billing, Agence France Presse

• Jun. 18, 2014, 7:37 AM

No tuition fees and generous grants give young Danes an opportunity that would make most green with envy -- a university education without a massive debt yoke.

But many, in both industry and politics, feel it's become a free lunch that's giving indigestion to Scandinavia's already weakest economy.

Too many pursue "fulfilment" and too few the science and engineering degrees needed in well-paid growth sectors critical for the nation's future, they say.

Typical is 23-year-old Ali Badreldin, who is enrolled at the Royal Danish Academy of Music to become a saxophone player. "Music was always part of my life growing up so it was a natural choice," he said.

His courses are free and he gets a monthly stipend of 5,839 DKK (782 euros, $1,074) in a system where class sizes are rarely limited.

The result has Denmark spending more proportionally on education than any other country in the OECD club of 34 advanced nations.

Yet biotech firms like Novozymes say they cannot find enough engineers.

Engineering opportunities have soared in recent years in Denmark, but its youth have shunned the sector, with only one-third the OECD average contemplating an engineering career amid top-heavy enrolment in arts and humanities programmes.

Read more: Free Universities And No Student Loan Debt Is Hurting Denmark's Economy

Lol this article is such a joke. For one thing, even despite Danish wages being higher after taxes, the Danes still pay more in taxes. That is how this education is paid for. Also, the premise of this article is so fallacious that it's laughable. It's claiming that the lack of pursuit in science degrees is BECAUSE tuition is free. That doesn't even make any sense. How do you not see that?

Obviously, you refused to read the article. That's okay, Progressives are proven to be far less likely to view opposing points of view and consider them than are Conservatives.

From the article:
Overall, only 48 percent of Danish graduates end up working in the private sector, compared with an EU average of 60 percent.

Some say only major change, both fiscal and ideological, will encourage more students towards well-paid growth sectors.

With one of the highest tax rates in the world -- at 56 percent for top earners -- big salaries mean mostly bigger taxes to sustain the welfare state. Many young Danes just don't see the point of putting in years of effort into studying for a bigger salary eaten up by taxes.

Others, like music student Ali, remain convinced that all will work out if they follow their dream.

"If you study something you are passionate about you have a greater chance of making a living from it later," he said.

Free Universities And No Student Loan Debt Is Hurting Denmark's Economy

As you have seen, they have one of the highest tax rates in the world. IF they do get a degree in engineering, they'll be paying 56% of that to the state. Plus they have a 25% value added tax (VAT). That is on everything except food, medical supplies, and a few other things. Tax on a car is 180%. So there is really no reason for anyone to pursue a pathway to get ahead. There is very little to gain. Why bother doing anything extra?

As a professional speaker, I learned early on that if the seminar or talk I was giving was free, fewer people would show up than if there was a nominal or higher fee. They were paying for something so it was worth something. If it was free, they could more easily skip the course since they had no investment.

You must be quite young, you have so much you THINK you know...but don't.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

This is why it is so difficult to discuss something with a Progressive. They have their own definitions for so many things.

Your statement that citizens who gather together to pay taxes for services, make them Socialists. Flat out LIE.

It is a shame they didn't teach civics when you were in school or the basic economies of the world. Follow me and I'll try to bring you along a bit.

See what you're too stupid to understand is that socialism has nothing to do with totalitarian government. Sure a government like that may have a socialist system, but that doesn't mean that the totalitarian regime has anything to do with the country being socialist. So yeah, any system that is funded by tax payers is socialist. SOCIAL, COLLECTIVE OWNERSHIP. That is what the meaning of the word is at its core.

You're not entirely wrong, just 90% wrong. No, a Socialist government doesn't have to be totalitarian, it only has to be if they want to stay Socialist. Once the economy starts to crash as the effects of a vastly superior economic system subside, people will realize what a mistake allowing the government to take control of, or replace the businesses was. At that point, people will speak out against it, but the government won't want to give up their power, so they will disarm citizens, censor media, take away rights, and silence the people before the full impact of what's happening sets in. With any Socialist nation, it's only a matter of time.

See this is an example of you cons saying a bunch of fluff. Just because you say something that sounds like it could be true, it doesn't mean it actually is true.

Then how about actually debating instead of blustering at me?

The point I am trying to make here is that what you posted here is complete fluff. You're just making shit up. What you're saying has nothing to do with the actual defintion of socialism. It's not like you even give real world examples and explain how this fluff relates to the actual definition of socialism.

Russia is a fine example, they actually built a wall around the place to keep people from leaving, and because they thought the government knows best, they declared anyone who tried to leave mentally unstable for wanting to leave what they saw as a "Socialist paradise". There are also the numerous Socialist nations that have failed because they pay no attention to history. It's impossible for a Socialist nation to survive financially.

Afghanistan(Twice), Albania(Three times), Angola, Benin, Bulgaria, Cambodia(Twice), Congo-Brazzaville, Czechoslovakia(twice), Ethiopia(twice), Germany, Hungary, North Korea, Mongolia, Mozambique, Poland, Romania, Somalia, Russia, North Vietnam, South Yemen, Yugoslavia, Venezuela, Greece.

If you want the full list of failed Socialist nations.

 

[Billy000]

What you people are too dumb to understand is that just because a socialist country might be a failure, it doesn't mean the idea of socialism is a failure. Denmark has a much lower poverty rate than the US. The work week is shorter. The percentage of people employed is higher. Wages are overall higher. It's also the number one place for business in the world.

Beyond that, the US has always been socialist. Our economy isn't a free market one - it's a mixed economy. Our defense department is biggest socialist institution in the world.

Wow Rush talks about people like that.....you proved him right.


First thank you for admitting CHAVEZ was a huuuuuuge failure

But socialism doesn't work......because you can't have a country with most people on the government dole...even Scandinavia countries are going through austerity...

Uh no actually. Denmark, economically, is superior to the US in many ways. The wages are overall higher. The percentage of people employed is higher. The average work week is shorter. It's the number one country to do business.

Not true.

Free Universities And No Student Loan Debt Is Hurting Denmark's Economy

• Soeren Billing, Agence France Presse

• Jun. 18, 2014, 7:37 AM

No tuition fees and generous grants give young Danes an opportunity that would make most green with envy -- a university education without a massive debt yoke.

But many, in both industry and politics, feel it's become a free lunch that's giving indigestion to Scandinavia's already weakest economy.

Too many pursue "fulfilment" and too few the science and engineering degrees needed in well-paid growth sectors critical for the nation's future, they say.

Typical is 23-year-old Ali Badreldin, who is enrolled at the Royal Danish Academy of Music to become a saxophone player. "Music was always part of my life growing up so it was a natural choice," he said.

His courses are free and he gets a monthly stipend of 5,839 DKK (782 euros, $1,074) in a system where class sizes are rarely limited.

The result has Denmark spending more proportionally on education than any other country in the OECD club of 34 advanced nations.

Yet biotech firms like Novozymes say they cannot find enough engineers.

Engineering opportunities have soared in recent years in Denmark, but its youth have shunned the sector, with only one-third the OECD average contemplating an engineering career amid top-heavy enrolment in arts and humanities programmes.

Read more: Free Universities And No Student Loan Debt Is Hurting Denmark's Economy

Lol this article is such a joke. For one thing, even despite Danish wages being higher after taxes, the Danes still pay more in taxes. That is how this education is paid for. Also, the premise of this article is so fallacious that it's laughable. It's claiming that the lack of pursuit in science degrees is BECAUSE tuition is free. That doesn't even make any sense. How do you not see that?

The pursuit of any degree would be effected, because the more people that have a degree, the less valuable it is. Something is more valuable if fewer people have it, that's why things on Ebay go up in price as they go out of production.

Careers obtained from science degrees have bigger salaries in Denmark. It would be a good investment to pursue it.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Not true.

Free Universities And No Student Loan Debt Is Hurting Denmark's Economy

• Soeren Billing, Agence France Presse

• Jun. 18, 2014, 7:37 AM

No tuition fees and generous grants give young Danes an opportunity that would make most green with envy -- a university education without a massive debt yoke.

But many, in both industry and politics, feel it's become a free lunch that's giving indigestion to Scandinavia's already weakest economy.

Too many pursue "fulfilment" and too few the science and engineering degrees needed in well-paid growth sectors critical for the nation's future, they say.

Typical is 23-year-old Ali Badreldin, who is enrolled at the Royal Danish Academy of Music to become a saxophone player. "Music was always part of my life growing up so it was a natural choice," he said.

His courses are free and he gets a monthly stipend of 5,839 DKK (782 euros, $1,074) in a system where class sizes are rarely limited.

The result has Denmark spending more proportionally on education than any other country in the OECD club of 34 advanced nations.

Yet biotech firms like Novozymes say they cannot find enough engineers.

Engineering opportunities have soared in recent years in Denmark, but its youth have shunned the sector, with only one-third the OECD average contemplating an engineering career amid top-heavy enrolment in arts and humanities programmes.

Read more: Free Universities And No Student Loan Debt Is Hurting Denmark's Economy

Lol this article is such a joke. For one thing, even despite Danish wages being higher after taxes, the Danes still pay more in taxes. That is how this education is paid for. Also, the premise of this article is so fallacious that it's laughable. It's claiming that the lack of pursuit in science degrees is BECAUSE tuition is free. That doesn't even make any sense. How do you not see that?

Why doesn't it make sense?

Why take a hard class when you get a job and don't have to work? Why not take music or art?
People do that here, and then bitch when they don't get a job, imagine if you could get a job doing nothing.....

Except that the article even states that science degrees pay more lol. They are a better investment for the time spent in school. The article is pure conjecture. There is no proof to this. It was made by some conservative retard living in the US anyway. More than likely the reason why science degrees are less pursued is because they are simply more difficult to achieve. Fewer people would be interested in them if most wouldn't be smart enough for them. You will find that problem all over the world.

So that's the reason Asians and whitey dominate the science market....we're smarter than Hispanics, blacks, pre whitey Americans and others?

I'm sorry do you not understand what ethnicity is dominant in Denmark?

See when using logic and science, you have to be objective...you cant' pick and choose conditions....
White is the dominant race....but your premise was people don't go into science because they cant do it.....and I said ok, so most science is dominated by Asians and whites...so does that argument hold true?

 

[Billy000]

World-Beating Debt Burden Is No ‘Serious Threat’ to Denmark

not good....Danish households owe their creditors 321 percent of disposable incomes, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

Oh gee. How much do you think Americans owe to their collectors? Funny how you made no comparison. Of course none of this changes the fact that the people of Denmark rank as the happiest people in the world.

I love it when you cons resort to random googling just to try to win an argument. It is so laughable. Don't pretend like you already knew this article existed before you googled it lol

How can you empirically measure happiness?
Happiness is not scientific. it's a feeling....some people are poor as dirt and are happy, anyone can be happy or unhappy.

as for debt
Household accounts - Household debt - OECD Data

US-113
Denmark-308


waaayy more, Id be happy if I don't work much, get paid and then can rack up debt....

At some point you'll figure out you can not sustain that.

Happiness is measured by the prevalence of people who describe themselves has happy in surveys. That's how it was measured.