The Nordic model is widely regarded as a benchmark.

[Norman]

To quote (mostly) another poster here:

A strong safety net is insurance against a social revolution.

The libertarianism-consumed Right just doesn't see that. It doesn't understand that. Nor does it want to.
.

Actually a "strong safety net" is the best way to guarantee the existence of a despondent zombie horde in the country. And of course, they breed and multiply like no one else, while those having to foot the bill don't.

This will never work in diverse society like the USA. Unless you are planning to make a whole race a dependent with no future. That's utterly racist...

What does race have to do with this?
.

Is this a serious response? I think we both know which race will become dependent on the "strong welfare". I would rather go Trump's way of swarming the communities with opportunity...

 

[Mac1958]

To quote (mostly) another poster here:

A strong safety net is insurance against a social revolution.

The libertarianism-consumed Right just doesn't see that. It doesn't understand that. Nor does it want to.
.

Actually a "strong safety net" is the best way to guarantee the existence of a despondent zombie horde in the country. And of course, they breed and multiply like no one else, while those having to foot the bill don't.

This will never work in diverse society like the USA. Unless you are planning to make a whole race a dependent with no future. That's utterly racist...

What does race have to do with this?
.

Is this a serious response? I think we both know which race will become dependent on the "strong welfare". I would rather go Trump's way of swarming the communities with opportunity...

Okay, got it.
.

 

[Pete7469]

You responded to the following post: "A strong safety net is insurance against a social revolution."

Perhaps you could focus on what I actually said, and address the sociological ramifications of increased wealth disparity.
.

No, I called you out for a bullshit assertion YOU MADE about what libertarians think.

To quote (mostly) another poster here:

A strong safety net is insurance against a social revolution.

The libertarianism-consumed Right just doesn't see that. It doesn't understand that. Nor does it want to.
.

I quite deftly refuted your assertion, you chose to focus on a trivial point.

 

[Mac1958]

You responded to the following post: "A strong safety net is insurance against a social revolution."

Perhaps you could focus on what I actually said, and address the sociological ramifications of increased wealth disparity.
.

No, I called you out for a bullshit assertion YOU MADE about what libertarians think.

To quote (mostly) another poster here:

A strong safety net is insurance against a social revolution.

The libertarianism-consumed Right just doesn't see that. It doesn't understand that. Nor does it want to.
.

I quite deftly refuted your assertion, you chose to focus on a trivial point.

Okay, I never expect straight answers here.
.

 

[Pete7469]

Okay, I never expect straight answers here.
.

Try providing one yourself Mac, you're really starting to look like a leftist asswipe.

 

[Natural Citizen]

The Nordic model gets discussed quite a bit. It's seriously discussed in many right-wing think tanks, for the most part, believe it or not.

If I ran a socialist monetary policy, which we do have in the Keynesian system we have now, the next logical step would be something like what the Nordics did, since the Keynesian model is designed to fail. And we see it failing. Our dollar is now worth precisely 4 cents and we're trillions of dollars in debt as a result of it. Remember that Marx never even attempted to explain how the State would ''wither away" after the "dictatorship of the proletariat" commenced. He had no answer, because it was just assumed. Of course, we see how that worked out, right?

The Nordic model would serve that purpose, though. Well, it would serve that purpose if I were a Keynesian who happened to be in big trouble sooner than later as a consequence of my doomed to failure monetary policy.

I've been kind of annoyed at the recent popularization of the term "Our Democracy"...like it's a form of government we run, or something. Both sides spew that fodder routinely as of the last year. It's like they're kind of subliminally programming people for the inevitable tyranny.

 

[BILLSANDS]

To quote (mostly) another poster here:

A strong safety net is insurance against a social revolution.

The libertarianism-consumed Right just doesn't see that. It doesn't understand that. Nor does it want to.

I'm going to say something nice about my conservative brethren here.

When you have multiple generations on the government dole who never learned how to work, you really are creating more of a problem than you are solving.

The Safety Net shouldn't become a hammock.

you do know that the nordic nations have two qualities they are some of the best places to start a business and they rank very high for technological and business innovation start up are rampant in scandanavia.. does that sound like a society booged down or dependent, go visit see how wrong you are

 

[Natural Citizen]

Bullshit.

No one on the right talks about eliminating the safety net.

Pete, let me ask you something. Reason I'm asking you is because we're both libertarians.

What do you think about a Monarchy? What I mean is this. If you knew we were screwed, and we only had one other ism to adopt, and civil liberties were out the door no matter what, would you rather it be a Monarchy than anything else?

I would.

 

[BILLSANDS]

Bullshit.

No one on the right talks about eliminating the safety net.

Pete, let me as you something.Reason I'm asking you is because we;re both libertarians.

What do you think about a Monarchy? What I mean is this. If you knew we were screwed, and we only had one other ism to adopt, and civil liberties were out the door no matter what, would you rather it be a Monarchy than anything else?

I would.

Benito Mussolini wasnt that bad

 

[Natural Citizen]

Benito Mussolini wasnt that bad

Ha. Sure, they could have some unimportant freedoms under Benito. They could own property, for example. Just so long as the collective didn't need that property.

In a fascist state, the individual is not suppressed, but rather multiplied. Right? As Benito was saying, it cannot be the individual who makes this decision, it can be only the state.

Corporativisimo! The collective, for those who aren't in fluent.

 

[BILLSANDS]

Benito Mussolini wasnt that bad

Ha. Sure, they could have some unimportant freedoms under Benito. They could own property, for example. Just so long as the collective didn't need that property.

you think the rich should have all the rights, i think we should just kill them all , and then we all would be free of them

 

[BILLSANDS]

Benito Mussolini wasnt that bad

Ha. Sure, they could have some unimportant freedoms under Benito. They could own property, for example. Just so long as the collective didn't need that property.

 

[Natural Citizen]

you think the rich should have all the rights, i think we should just kill them all , and then we all would be free of them

I just want to end the Fed, man. The reason the rich are rich and the middle class are poor is because the rich are the first people to receive all of that freshly printed money from the Fed and they're the ones who get to insert it into the economy. These, of course, are the special interests and their lobbyists. While the middle class get hit with the inflation tax and stagnant wages.

 

[Pete7469]

Pete, let me ask you something. Reason I'm asking you is because we're both libertarians.

What do you think about a Monarchy? What I mean is this. If you knew we were screwed, and we only had one other ism to adopt, and civil liberties were out the door no matter what, would you rather it be a Monarchy than anything else?

I would.

Civil liberties are my only objective.

Without that I'm opposed to any government. A monarchy would just decrease the quantity of targets.

I'm not a full blown libertarian though, I want a secured border and have some flexibility to intervene in foreign affairs.

Although I do think we ought to bring all our military people and toys back into this hemisphere.

 

[Norman]

you think the rich should have all the rights, i think we should just kill them all , and then we all would be free of them

I just want to end the Fed, man. The reason the rich are rich and the middle class are poor is because the rich are the first people to receive all of that freshly printed money from the Fed and they're the ones who get to insert it into the economy. These, of course, are the special interests and their lobbyists. While the middle class get hit with the inflation tax and stagnant wages.

The middle class isn't poor by any stretch, in fact even the poor aren't poor.

But there are of course bunch of rich people gaming the system at the expense of others.

 

[Theowl32]

Do the Nordic countries have a problem with millions of Mexicans and South Americans crossing their borders and taking advantage of free stuff?

 

[Natural Citizen]

Civil liberties are my only objective.

Without that I'm opposed to any government. A monarchy would just decrease the quantity of targets.

I'm not a full blown libertarian though, I want a secured border and have some flexibility to intervene in foreign affairs.

Although I do think we ought to bring all our military people and toys back into this hemisphere.

Yeah. I suppose licking one pair of boots is no different than licking a dozen pair. Licking boots is licking boots, no matter how a feller spins it.

Okay, then, scratch the Monarchy, as a backup.

 

[Norman]

Do the Nordic countries have a problem with millions of Mexicans and South Americans crossing their borders and taking advantage of free stuff?

Actually Sweden is overrun by 3rd world Muslims now, which they invited because the people growing up on government services think the services are truly free and thus it's racist to not offer them to everyone. Their experiment won't be lasting much longer.

 

[JoeB131]

Okay, I never expect straight answers here.

He gave you a straight answer, just one that didn't agree with your opinion.

 

[Natural Citizen]

The middle class isn't poor by any stretch, in fact even the poor aren't poor.

But there are of course bunch of rich people gaming the system at the expense of others.

The best indicator of the gap is wage stagnation. Before 1971, the middle class were doing great and the 1 percenters were doing awful. Then, in 1971 when the feds flipped monetary policy full steam, the 1 percenters started doing great while the middle class wages stalled and became stagnant, while they got hit with the inflation tax. And they're still getting hit with it.

So, stagflation has been the burdon placed upon the middle class.