Bernie Sanders thinks our government should be more like the ones found in Scandanavia

[Billy000]

He's right. Sander's entire political position is dictated by FACTS. You know those pesky things republicans try to avoid to win over a stupid American populace.

Bernie Sanders I can beat Hillary Clinton - CBS News

He has a long shot. I know that. He probably ultimately won't become president, but you know his message will at least be heard. Hopefully something comes out of that.

The Koch brothers donated close to a billion to the republican campaign. Thats twice as much of the funding for the entire 2012 republican campaign. Two guys essentially comprise an entire third party.

Why are average joe republicans okay with that?

How nice of you to call the American populace stupid.

If Bernie is fond of Scandanavia....he can move there.

Do you know where the US public education system ranks among the rest of the world?

Worse than it should be.... by far. Of course our education system is run by socialized government public schools.

If there is anyone to blame for poor education, it's socialist supporters like Bernie.

lol so your brilliant solution is to completely privatize our education system? Are you that dense? How the **** would that help? Either way it is retarded considering a dozen developed counties have better student performance based on socialized systems.

Private schools often have better academic outcomes, and do so at a lower cost. Yes, it would help.

I compared three school system, right here in Central Ohio. Columbus Academy, a private school system. Columbus public, and Upper Arlington Schools, a suburb.

The worst performing was Columbus public, with the worst grades and educational outcomes. The best, was Academy with the best grades and outcomes.

And yet, I looked up how much each system was spending per student. The Academy was spending less money than Columbus or Upper Arlington. And Columbus Public, was spending the most per student, and by a wide margin.

We've played it your socialized way. It sucks. We spend the most money, and have marginal results. The capitalist schools, spend the least money, and have the best results.

Yes absolutely. We should privatize the schools. You claim to be all about facts, but every time you are confronted with facts, you ignore them, and make up excuses. Ignorant liar.

Lol your idea of evidence is comparing a grand total three schools only one of which is private? You also haven't explained why a dozen socialized school systems in other nations have better student performances.

 

[Dragonlady]

The corporate tax rate is 35% not 40%. And only small corporations pay 35%. Large U.S. corporations have an effective tax rate of 10% to 15%. The average effective tax rate is under 25%.

The big problem with the U.S. that I see your refusal to accept responsibility for the poorest citizens. You don't want to pay for education, nutrition or medical care for the poor and you blame them for being poor. This started with Ronald Reagan.

Since Reagan's fundamentally change the tax rates, and gutted the anti-trust laws, corporations have gotten so large that small businesses cannot compete with them and wealth has steadily flowed upward to the wealthy.

Until the mega corporations are broken up, and the tax code revised, the rich are going to continue to get richer and the middle class are going to lose grounds economically regardless of which party is in power.

Until Americans start pulling together as a nation instead of blaming the poor, the blacks and the immigrants for their problems, those problems are going to get worse, not better.

 

[Andylusion]

He's right. Sander's entire political position is dictated by FACTS. You know those pesky things republicans try to avoid to win over a stupid American populace.

Bernie Sanders I can beat Hillary Clinton - CBS News

He has a long shot. I know that. He probably ultimately won't become president, but you know his message will at least be heard. Hopefully something comes out of that.

The Koch brothers donated close to a billion to the republican campaign. Thats twice as much of the funding for the entire 2012 republican campaign. Two guys essentially comprise an entire third party.

Why are average joe republicans okay with that?

Hm.... so Sanders thinks we should be more like Scandinavia... and you claim to be all about facts.

Alright.... none of the above countries has a minimum wage. Are you supporting elimination of the minimum wage?

Corporate tax in the above countries is 23.5%, 20%, 20%, 27%, 22%.
In the US, it's 40%. Are you supporting cutting the corporate tax by half?

All of the above countries have an average international trade tariff of between 0% and 1%. Norway has an average tariff on imported goods of just 0.3%. The US has an average import tariff of 1.5% and over. Are you supporting cutting tariffs and supporting open markets and free-trade?

So....... here are some facts. And you want us to be like Scandinavia. Do you still want us to be like Scandinavia, or are you ignoring some facts?

Which is it?

Um you are flat out wrong about these countries not having minimum wages. I also never said that the US should change everything about it. I said "more like".

Also, in terms of GDP, Norway has the world's 4th biggest economy. They also have a strong middle class while ours is weakening.

No, I am not wrong. You are wrong, and a liar who said he's about facts, but proves he's about political partisan ignorance.

More like what? They have more capitalism than we do. Denmark ranks higher on the economic freedom index than the US does. That's a fact. You claimed to be about facts. Clearly the fact-less group here is yours.

You claim we should be more like Scandinavia, then deny things we could change to actually be more like Scandinavia. You are ignorant liar. There's a fact for you.

"They have more capitalism then we do"

Is that your idea of a "fact"? What does that even mean?

What separates US's economy from country's like Norway or Sweden are honest to god labor rights like maternity leave and paid time off. Norway also ranks as one of the happiest of populations on the planet. Among developed nations, the US is near the bottom.

It is in many ways easier to start a company, and make tons of money in Norway and Sweden, than it is in the US even. That's what capitalism is all about. Using your own capital to make yourself wealthy.

Best Countries for Business List - Forbes

Forbes lists top countries to start a business in.........

Number ONE...... Denmark..... *gasp*
Number FIVE..... Sweden.... *gasp*
Number SEVEN... Norway.... *gasp*
Number TEN..... Finland..... *gasp*
Number FIFTEEN... Iceland.... *gasp*

Number EIGHTEEN.... The USA

Now do you get it? All of those countries that you just said we should be more like, are all hot beds of right-wing raw Capitalism.

All of them are higher on the list of places for Capitalist to go engage in Capitalism, than the US.

List of largest Nordic companies - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Some of the biggest global corporations in the world, operate out of these pro-capitalist countries.

Do you support that?

The irony is, I actually do support what Bernie said. We should be more like Scandinavia, by moving away from socialism the ruins people the world over, and more towards Capitalism, which works every single time it is tried, and Scandinavia is proof of exactly that.

 

[Billy000]

He's right. Sander's entire political position is dictated by FACTS. You know those pesky things republicans try to avoid to win over a stupid American populace.

Bernie Sanders I can beat Hillary Clinton - CBS News

He has a long shot. I know that. He probably ultimately won't become president, but you know his message will at least be heard. Hopefully something comes out of that.

The Koch brothers donated close to a billion to the republican campaign. Thats twice as much of the funding for the entire 2012 republican campaign. Two guys essentially comprise an entire third party.

Why are average joe republicans okay with that?

Hm.... so Sanders thinks we should be more like Scandinavia... and you claim to be all about facts.

Alright.... none of the above countries has a minimum wage. Are you supporting elimination of the minimum wage?

Corporate tax in the above countries is 23.5%, 20%, 20%, 27%, 22%.
In the US, it's 40%. Are you supporting cutting the corporate tax by half?

All of the above countries have an average international trade tariff of between 0% and 1%. Norway has an average tariff on imported goods of just 0.3%. The US has an average import tariff of 1.5% and over. Are you supporting cutting tariffs and supporting open markets and free-trade?

So....... here are some facts. And you want us to be like Scandinavia. Do you still want us to be like Scandinavia, or are you ignoring some facts?

Which is it?

Um you are flat out wrong about these countries not having minimum wages. I also never said that the US should change everything about it. I said "more like".

Also, in terms of GDP, Norway has the world's 4th biggest economy. They also have a strong middle class while ours is weakening.

No, I am not wrong. You are wrong, and a liar who said he's about facts, but proves he's about political partisan ignorance.

More like what? They have more capitalism than we do. Denmark ranks higher on the economic freedom index than the US does. That's a fact. You claimed to be about facts. Clearly the fact-less group here is yours.

You claim we should be more like Scandinavia, then deny things we could change to actually be more like Scandinavia. You are ignorant liar. There's a fact for you.

"They have more capitalism then we do"

Is that your idea of a "fact"? What does that even mean?

What separates US's economy from country's like Norway or Sweden are honest to god labor rights like maternity leave and paid time off. Norway also ranks as one of the happiest of populations on the planet. Among developed nations, the US is near the bottom.

It is in many ways easier to start a company, and make tons of money in Norway and Sweden, than it is in the US even. That's what capitalism is all about. Using your own capital to make yourself wealthy.

Best Countries for Business List - Forbes

Forbes lists top countries to start a business in.........

Number ONE...... Denmark..... *gasp*
Number FIVE..... Sweden.... *gasp*
Number SEVEN... Norway.... *gasp*
Number TEN..... Finland..... *gasp*
Number FIFTEEN... Iceland.... *gasp*

Number EIGHTEEN.... The USA

Now do you get it? All of those countries that you just said we should be more like, are all hot beds of right-wing raw Capitalism.

All of them are higher on the list of places for Capitalist to go engage in Capitalism, than the US.

List of largest Nordic companies - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Some of the biggest global corporations in the world, operate out of these pro-capitalist countries.

Do you support that?

The irony is, I actually do support what Bernie said. We should be more like Scandinavia, by moving away from socialism the ruins people the world over, and more towards Capitalism, which works every single time it is tried, and Scandinavia is proof of exactly that.

Lol I don't understand where you are getting this idea that I oppose capitalism. Of course I favor it. Countries like Norway just do it better.

 

[SAYIT]

... **** the rich...

So who in your mind are the rich? Those who make $1mil/yr or more? Those who make half that? Those whose net worth is over $1mil? The thing is, lots of Americans - most of whom consume much of their earnings - prefer to make their own way without ******* the rich. Meanwhile most of the rich must invest in America - creating jobs and prosperity - as an alternative to stuffing their wealth in a mattress.

It's really hard to assign a number to this concept, but I would define being "rich" as having considerably more wealth remaining after all needs are dismissed. A person making $1 million a year who spends nearly that much during the course of that year is certainly not rich, whereas a person making $1 million a year and only spending $100k certainly is.

Maybe that's how it should be broken down rather than a set dollar amount.

And I would agree that SOME of the rich reinvest. But not even close to most. Otherwise, those stagnant trillions in the economy would have been out there working their magic already - creating jobs, getting people off food stamps and welfare...

So if you are a playboy who spends a million a year jetting around the world, staying in the finest hotels and wallowing in $1000/hr prostitutes, you aren't rich?

No matter what you buy, your spending is someone's income. If you don't spend, people go hungry. Hookers and hoteliers alike.

If you purchase goods, some of that money goes to pay the costs of materials (not income) and some goes into the pockets of those who own the company and maybe make that $1 mil/yr. Those who reinvest $900,000 of it are producing more jobs and more wealth for everyone. Your contention - that wealthy people either spend their money or stuff it in a mattress (your "stagnant trillions") is simply ridiculous.

 

[Andylusion]

How nice of you to call the American populace stupid.

If Bernie is fond of Scandanavia....he can move there.

Do you know where the US public education system ranks among the rest of the world?

Worse than it should be.... by far. Of course our education system is run by socialized government public schools.

If there is anyone to blame for poor education, it's socialist supporters like Bernie.

lol so your brilliant solution is to completely privatize our education system? Are you that dense? How the **** would that help? Either way it is retarded considering a dozen developed counties have better student performance based on socialized systems.

Private schools often have better academic outcomes, and do so at a lower cost. Yes, it would help.

I compared three school system, right here in Central Ohio. Columbus Academy, a private school system. Columbus public, and Upper Arlington Schools, a suburb.

The worst performing was Columbus public, with the worst grades and educational outcomes. The best, was Academy with the best grades and outcomes.

And yet, I looked up how much each system was spending per student. The Academy was spending less money than Columbus or Upper Arlington. And Columbus Public, was spending the most per student, and by a wide margin.

We've played it your socialized way. It sucks. We spend the most money, and have marginal results. The capitalist schools, spend the least money, and have the best results.

Yes absolutely. We should privatize the schools. You claim to be all about facts, but every time you are confronted with facts, you ignore them, and make up excuses. Ignorant liar.

Lol your idea of evidence is comparing a grand total three schools only one of which is private? You also haven't explained why a dozen socialized school systems in other nations have better student performances.

Because many are not nearly as socialized as you think. Finland has many private schools. They compete directly with public schools, which forces them to do better.... or lose customers. *Gasp* Free-market competition, bedrock of capitalism. Wow.

Another aspect is that you are not entitled to education in many of these countries. If you don't make the grades in Finland, they kick you out.... even the public schools.

In fact most of those schools that do better than the US, have an exact opposite philosophy to the "equality entitlement" belief system.

South Korea has been praised by Obama as a model to follow for their high education outcomes. But, in their system, you have to pass entrance exams for any high school you wish to enter. If you don't pass, you don't go. No child left behind, isn't a policy there. If you don't meet the minimum requirements for the least of high schools, you don't go to high school.

And high schools compete for students as much as the other way around. If your school sucks... students will not apply to go there (unless perhaps they can't qualify for anywhere else). But if not enough students show up, your school closes, and all those teachers lose their jobs.

Quite a bit different than the American "I have a Union and Tenure, screw the students" attitude we see in our public socialized 'no capitalist competition' system. And by the way.... I had to personally deal with such teachers when I was a student. So don't even try and tell me it's not that way.

 

[Andylusion]

Hm.... so Sanders thinks we should be more like Scandinavia... and you claim to be all about facts.

Alright.... none of the above countries has a minimum wage. Are you supporting elimination of the minimum wage?

Corporate tax in the above countries is 23.5%, 20%, 20%, 27%, 22%.
In the US, it's 40%. Are you supporting cutting the corporate tax by half?

All of the above countries have an average international trade tariff of between 0% and 1%. Norway has an average tariff on imported goods of just 0.3%. The US has an average import tariff of 1.5% and over. Are you supporting cutting tariffs and supporting open markets and free-trade?

So....... here are some facts. And you want us to be like Scandinavia. Do you still want us to be like Scandinavia, or are you ignoring some facts?

Which is it?

Um you are flat out wrong about these countries not having minimum wages. I also never said that the US should change everything about it. I said "more like".

Also, in terms of GDP, Norway has the world's 4th biggest economy. They also have a strong middle class while ours is weakening.

No, I am not wrong. You are wrong, and a liar who said he's about facts, but proves he's about political partisan ignorance.

More like what? They have more capitalism than we do. Denmark ranks higher on the economic freedom index than the US does. That's a fact. You claimed to be about facts. Clearly the fact-less group here is yours.

You claim we should be more like Scandinavia, then deny things we could change to actually be more like Scandinavia. You are ignorant liar. There's a fact for you.

"They have more capitalism then we do"

Is that your idea of a "fact"? What does that even mean?

What separates US's economy from country's like Norway or Sweden are honest to god labor rights like maternity leave and paid time off. Norway also ranks as one of the happiest of populations on the planet. Among developed nations, the US is near the bottom.

It is in many ways easier to start a company, and make tons of money in Norway and Sweden, than it is in the US even. That's what capitalism is all about. Using your own capital to make yourself wealthy.

Best Countries for Business List - Forbes

Forbes lists top countries to start a business in.........

Number ONE...... Denmark..... *gasp*
Number FIVE..... Sweden.... *gasp*
Number SEVEN... Norway.... *gasp*
Number TEN..... Finland..... *gasp*
Number FIFTEEN... Iceland.... *gasp*

Number EIGHTEEN.... The USA

Now do you get it? All of those countries that you just said we should be more like, are all hot beds of right-wing raw Capitalism.

All of them are higher on the list of places for Capitalist to go engage in Capitalism, than the US.

List of largest Nordic companies - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Some of the biggest global corporations in the world, operate out of these pro-capitalist countries.

Do you support that?

The irony is, I actually do support what Bernie said. We should be more like Scandinavia, by moving away from socialism the ruins people the world over, and more towards Capitalism, which works every single time it is tried, and Scandinavia is proof of exactly that.

Lol I don't understand where you are getting this idea that I oppose capitalism. Of course I favor it. Countries like Norway just do it better.

Great! Let's do it better like they do. Less regulations. Less taxes. More free trade and lower tariffs. Let's do capitalism like they do!

 

[SAYIT]

... **** the rich...

So who in your mind are the rich? Those who make $1mil/yr or more? Those who make half that? Those whose net worth is over $1mil? The thing is, lots of Americans - most of whom consume much of their earnings - prefer to make their own way without ******* the rich. Meanwhile most of the rich must invest in America - creating jobs and prosperity - as an alternative to stuffing their wealth in a mattress.

It's really hard to assign a number to this concept, but I would define being "rich" as having considerably more wealth remaining after all needs are dismissed. A person making $1 million a year who spends nearly that much during the course of that year is certainly not rich, whereas a person making $1 million a year and only spending $100k certainly is...

Of course, then you would have to define "needs" and I would suggest that the person making and consuming $1mil/yr is doing less good than the person who consumes $100,000 and saves $900,000/yr. Surely you must know that $900,000 isn't going into a mattress.
So where do you think it does go?

And I would agree that SOME of the rich reinvest. But not even close to most. Otherwise, those stagnant trillions in the economy would have been out there working their magic already - creating jobs, getting people off food stamps and welfare...

Stagnant trillions? So you think the wealthy - you know, those who don't consume every dollar they earn - stuff their cash in a mattress? Really?

It doesn't get stuffed into mattresses, it gets stuffed into trust funds...

WTF do you think happens to wealth in trust funds? It is invested in order to grow the fund and those investments create jobs and wealth. You are so addicted to class warfare ("**** the rich") you have blinded yourself to reality.

 

[Dragonlady]

As to the comment that for every immigrant Canada takes in, the U.S. takes in 9, but your population is 10 times greater than ours so we should be taking in far fewer immigrants. As a percentage of population, were still taking in more people than you and if you measure only legal immigrants, you actually take in 100,000 fewer people than we do.

And yet we manage to provide them with housing, education, and medical care all while balancing our budgets.

Americans have long demonized immigrants. In Boston and New York, first it was the Irish, then the Italians. Both were scum of the earth. Now it's blacks and Mexicans.

Only the poor came to the US from Europe. They were seeking opportunities. The Irish had endured centuries of mistreatment at the hands of the British and years of famine.

Upon their arrival the were vilified. They were poor and they were Catholic in a largely Protestant country. Until Kennedy, no Catholic had ever been President and many were as horrified by having a "Papist" in the White House in 1960, as those who resent that a black man is President today.

There is no "us and them". You are all one nation. A house divided against itself cannot stand. This is why your country in failing.

 

[SAYIT]

Well, all your best hockey players come here but I wouldn't call the migration in either direction "swarming." So if Canada is so much the better choice, why aren't Americans (and for that matter all the world) beating a path to your door?
Immigration to Canada - 250,000/yr
Immigration to US - 3 mil/yr

Legally?
Canada has about a 225k/yr legal quota - it's open and works on a point system.
US has a 140k/yr legal quota plus another category for asylum which adds another 70k/yr. The US system works on categories as well as percentages (no more that 7% of all applicants can be from the same country for via apps, and set numbers of asylum seekers from a set number of countries).

Obviously you took Canada's real numbers, and then used the estimate for the number of undocumented immigrants to the US. This, of course, is apples and oranges.

Yes, I'm pretty certain most of the hockey players are here legally and are you suggesting that 2.8 million US illegals "swarm" into Canada each year?

No - actually I think that was YOU who said that... I was the one who brought up that your statistics were crap. Do try to keep up.

It certainly was not me but rather Dragonlady who claimed Canadian domestic policies are so superior to ours that "lots" of Americans are swarming there. I simply pointed out that for every immigrant Canada absorbs the US gets 9. Do try to keep up.

OK - so following a thread isn't one of your strong points...
So that you can have an easy reference to what YOU said (not Dragonlady), here it is again:

Well, all your best hockey players come here but I wouldn't call the migration in either direction "swarming." So if Canada is so much the better choice, why aren't Americans (and for that matter all the world) beating a path to your door?
Immigration to Canada - 250,000/yr
Immigration to US - 3 mil/yr

Whereupon, I responded that you had fairly represented Canada's immigration numbers, but had grossly inflated the US numbers (which, LEGALLY, is constrained to less than what Canada allows). Since the 3 million number is also an estimate (based on Conservative "data") of the number of people who ILLEGALLY enter the US annually (technically they aren't immigrants in the same sense as you represented Canada), it seemed to me that you were comparing 2 different things.

So you were either mistaken about US immigration policy or simply don't have the data on Canada's illegal entrant estimates, but either way you look at it you were still wrong.

Woo. A bit dense, eh? The point I made (and neither you nor Dragon have managed to contradict) is that immigration to Canada is but a fraction of that to the US which conflicts with Dragon's contention that Canada's domestic policies are so superior to the US. We are not swarming across the border to enjoy the good Canadian life.

 

[Billy000]

Do you know where the US public education system ranks among the rest of the world?

Worse than it should be.... by far. Of course our education system is run by socialized government public schools.

If there is anyone to blame for poor education, it's socialist supporters like Bernie.

lol so your brilliant solution is to completely privatize our education system? Are you that dense? How the **** would that help? Either way it is retarded considering a dozen developed counties have better student performance based on socialized systems.

Private schools often have better academic outcomes, and do so at a lower cost. Yes, it would help.

I compared three school system, right here in Central Ohio. Columbus Academy, a private school system. Columbus public, and Upper Arlington Schools, a suburb.

The worst performing was Columbus public, with the worst grades and educational outcomes. The best, was Academy with the best grades and outcomes.

And yet, I looked up how much each system was spending per student. The Academy was spending less money than Columbus or Upper Arlington. And Columbus Public, was spending the most per student, and by a wide margin.

We've played it your socialized way. It sucks. We spend the most money, and have marginal results. The capitalist schools, spend the least money, and have the best results.

Yes absolutely. We should privatize the schools. You claim to be all about facts, but every time you are confronted with facts, you ignore them, and make up excuses. Ignorant liar.

Lol your idea of evidence is comparing a grand total three schools only one of which is private? You also haven't explained why a dozen socialized school systems in other nations have better student performances.

Because many are not nearly as socialized as you think. Finland has many private schools. They compete directly with public schools, which forces them to do better.... or lose customers. *Gasp* Free-market competition, bedrock of capitalism. Wow.

Another aspect is that you are not entitled to education in many of these countries. If you don't make the grades in Finland, they kick you out.... even the public schools.

In fact most of those schools that do better than the US, have an exact opposite philosophy to the "equality entitlement" belief system.

South Korea has been praised by Obama as a model to follow for their high education outcomes. But, in their system, you have to pass entrance exams for any high school you wish to enter. If you don't pass, you don't go. No child left behind, isn't a policy there. If you don't meet the minimum requirements for the least of high schools, you don't go to high school.

And high schools compete for students as much as the other way around. If your school sucks... students will not apply to go there (unless perhaps they can't qualify for anywhere else). But if not enough students show up, your school closes, and all those teachers lose their jobs.

Quite a bit different than the American "I have a Union and Tenure, screw the students" attitude we see in our public socialized 'no capitalist competition' system. And by the way.... I had to personally deal with such teachers when I was a student. So don't even try and tell me it's not that way.

Dude stop you're just making shit up as you go along. These school systems are not more private then the US. Norway's public education is completely free and their students do better on average. The same goes for Australia.

Tell me, how exacty would poor kids in the US get an education with a privatized system? The US ranks as one of the worst in child povety rates among developed nations. 15% of the US population lives in poverty. Many fAmiles could not possibly afford to send their students to privatized schools. In order for a private system to work, parents would have to put up size able fees.

 

[SAYIT]

As to the comment that for every immigrant Canada takes in, the U.S. takes in 9, but your population is 10 times greater than ours so we should be taking in far fewer immigrants...

Existing population is not a determining factor in the demand for entry papers ... quality of life is and your contention that Canadian life is so superior to the US is not supported by the preferred destination of immigrants.

 

[Billy000]

Um you are flat out wrong about these countries not having minimum wages. I also never said that the US should change everything about it. I said "more like".

Also, in terms of GDP, Norway has the world's 4th biggest economy. They also have a strong middle class while ours is weakening.

No, I am not wrong. You are wrong, and a liar who said he's about facts, but proves he's about political partisan ignorance.

More like what? They have more capitalism than we do. Denmark ranks higher on the economic freedom index than the US does. That's a fact. You claimed to be about facts. Clearly the fact-less group here is yours.

You claim we should be more like Scandinavia, then deny things we could change to actually be more like Scandinavia. You are ignorant liar. There's a fact for you.

"They have more capitalism then we do"

Is that your idea of a "fact"? What does that even mean?

What separates US's economy from country's like Norway or Sweden are honest to god labor rights like maternity leave and paid time off. Norway also ranks as one of the happiest of populations on the planet. Among developed nations, the US is near the bottom.

It is in many ways easier to start a company, and make tons of money in Norway and Sweden, than it is in the US even. That's what capitalism is all about. Using your own capital to make yourself wealthy.

Best Countries for Business List - Forbes

Forbes lists top countries to start a business in.........

Number ONE...... Denmark..... *gasp*
Number FIVE..... Sweden.... *gasp*
Number SEVEN... Norway.... *gasp*
Number TEN..... Finland..... *gasp*
Number FIFTEEN... Iceland.... *gasp*

Number EIGHTEEN.... The USA

Now do you get it? All of those countries that you just said we should be more like, are all hot beds of right-wing raw Capitalism.

All of them are higher on the list of places for Capitalist to go engage in Capitalism, than the US.

List of largest Nordic companies - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Some of the biggest global corporations in the world, operate out of these pro-capitalist countries.

Do you support that?

The irony is, I actually do support what Bernie said. We should be more like Scandinavia, by moving away from socialism the ruins people the world over, and more towards Capitalism, which works every single time it is tried, and Scandinavia is proof of exactly that.

Lol I don't understand where you are getting this idea that I oppose capitalism. Of course I favor it. Countries like Norway just do it better.

Great! Let's do it better like they do. Less regulations. Less taxes. More free trade and lower tariffs. Let's do capitalism like they do!

I'm not sure where your logic of lower taxes is coming from when you discuss corporate tax rates. Yes the actual percentage is lower in those countries, but their economies and populations are also significantly smaller. The US needs high taxes to pay for all of the government services provided. I mean my god, the US spends more on defense then all of our allies do combined.

I question the notion that the economies are less regulated. The US would of course have more regulations considering the sheer size our economy and nation. Consumer protection laws are much better in other counties than here.

 

[Dragonlady]

As to the comment that for every immigrant Canada takes in, the U.S. takes in 9, but your population is 10 times greater than ours so we should be taking in far fewer immigrants...

Existing population is not a determining factor in the demand for entry papers ... quality of life is and your contention that Canadian life is so superior to the US is not supported by the preferred destination of immigrants.

Your conclusions are based on faulty logic, at best.

We turn away far more potential immigrants than we take in. The waiting list to get in is about 3 years right now. That is

Also, if you come here illegally, good luck finding work. Employers are legally required to request an employee's Social Insurance Card. Not their number, their actual card. And a copy of the card, made by the employer is to be kept in their file.

Without a SIN card, you can't get a job, welfare or any government service. Without landed immigrant status, you can't get a SIN card.

This is why Americans saying their country is being victimized by illegal immigrants is ridiculous. When illegals arrive, they can easily get jobs, drivers licenses and other government services. The ease with which illegals can function in the U.S. Is an open invitation and one which Republicans are resistant to shutting down.

That Americans keep blaming the illegals for coming, instead of the government which tolerates their presence as a supply of cheap labour, makes the situation almost laughable.

Illegal immigration isn't a problem for Canada because we don't tolerate it.

 

[Andylusion]

Worse than it should be.... by far. Of course our education system is run by socialized government public schools.

If there is anyone to blame for poor education, it's socialist supporters like Bernie.

lol so your brilliant solution is to completely privatize our education system? Are you that dense? How the **** would that help? Either way it is retarded considering a dozen developed counties have better student performance based on socialized systems.

Private schools often have better academic outcomes, and do so at a lower cost. Yes, it would help.

I compared three school system, right here in Central Ohio. Columbus Academy, a private school system. Columbus public, and Upper Arlington Schools, a suburb.

The worst performing was Columbus public, with the worst grades and educational outcomes. The best, was Academy with the best grades and outcomes.

And yet, I looked up how much each system was spending per student. The Academy was spending less money than Columbus or Upper Arlington. And Columbus Public, was spending the most per student, and by a wide margin.

We've played it your socialized way. It sucks. We spend the most money, and have marginal results. The capitalist schools, spend the least money, and have the best results.

Yes absolutely. We should privatize the schools. You claim to be all about facts, but every time you are confronted with facts, you ignore them, and make up excuses. Ignorant liar.

Lol your idea of evidence is comparing a grand total three schools only one of which is private? You also haven't explained why a dozen socialized school systems in other nations have better student performances.

Because many are not nearly as socialized as you think. Finland has many private schools. They compete directly with public schools, which forces them to do better.... or lose customers. *Gasp* Free-market competition, bedrock of capitalism. Wow.

Another aspect is that you are not entitled to education in many of these countries. If you don't make the grades in Finland, they kick you out.... even the public schools.

In fact most of those schools that do better than the US, have an exact opposite philosophy to the "equality entitlement" belief system.

South Korea has been praised by Obama as a model to follow for their high education outcomes. But, in their system, you have to pass entrance exams for any high school you wish to enter. If you don't pass, you don't go. No child left behind, isn't a policy there. If you don't meet the minimum requirements for the least of high schools, you don't go to high school.

And high schools compete for students as much as the other way around. If your school sucks... students will not apply to go there (unless perhaps they can't qualify for anywhere else). But if not enough students show up, your school closes, and all those teachers lose their jobs.

Quite a bit different than the American "I have a Union and Tenure, screw the students" attitude we see in our public socialized 'no capitalist competition' system. And by the way.... I had to personally deal with such teachers when I was a student. So don't even try and tell me it's not that way.

Dude stop you're just making shit up as you go along. These school systems are not more private then the US. Norway's public education is completely free and their students do better on average. The same goes for Australia.

Tell me, how exacty would poor kids in the US get an education with a privatized system? The US ranks as one of the worst in child povety rates among developed nations. 15% of the US population lives in poverty. Many fAmiles could not possibly afford to send their students to privatized schools. In order for a private system to work, parents would have to put up size able fees.

Private Schools for the Poor - Education Next Education Next

Happens all over the world.

http://www.amazon.com/Beautiful-Tre...lves/dp/1933995920/&tag=ff0d01-20?tag=usmb-20

Very well documented.



Private schools in the most impoverished countries in the world.... consistently out perform public schools. And the poorest people can afford it.

I see no logical reason to assume that if people in 3rd world countries can afford private schools, that those of earn the minimum wage in the US, can't afford them.

Now, right now they can't. That's true. Because we have bred this entitlement mentality, where people think they shouldn't have to pay anything to have their kids educated. Thus, there are no low-income private schools, like there are all over the poorer places of the world.

If we had more of a "you must earn education" belief system, more people would be willing to pay to educate their kids, and there would be more low-cost education options.

Even so, we do have private schools that cost only $500 a month. And those that cost more, many have tuition assistance and scholarships. I read where some of the Catholic schools are only $5,000 a year, and nearly all the students have some amount of scholarship funds.

So it is possible, and we can do it. And universally, private schools routinely out perform public ones. Why are you against the poorest people getting a better education?

 

[Andylusion]

No, I am not wrong. You are wrong, and a liar who said he's about facts, but proves he's about political partisan ignorance.

More like what? They have more capitalism than we do. Denmark ranks higher on the economic freedom index than the US does. That's a fact. You claimed to be about facts. Clearly the fact-less group here is yours.

You claim we should be more like Scandinavia, then deny things we could change to actually be more like Scandinavia. You are ignorant liar. There's a fact for you.

"They have more capitalism then we do"

Is that your idea of a "fact"? What does that even mean?

What separates US's economy from country's like Norway or Sweden are honest to god labor rights like maternity leave and paid time off. Norway also ranks as one of the happiest of populations on the planet. Among developed nations, the US is near the bottom.

It is in many ways easier to start a company, and make tons of money in Norway and Sweden, than it is in the US even. That's what capitalism is all about. Using your own capital to make yourself wealthy.

Best Countries for Business List - Forbes

Forbes lists top countries to start a business in.........

Number ONE...... Denmark..... *gasp*
Number FIVE..... Sweden.... *gasp*
Number SEVEN... Norway.... *gasp*
Number TEN..... Finland..... *gasp*
Number FIFTEEN... Iceland.... *gasp*

Number EIGHTEEN.... The USA

Now do you get it? All of those countries that you just said we should be more like, are all hot beds of right-wing raw Capitalism.

All of them are higher on the list of places for Capitalist to go engage in Capitalism, than the US.

List of largest Nordic companies - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Some of the biggest global corporations in the world, operate out of these pro-capitalist countries.

Do you support that?

The irony is, I actually do support what Bernie said. We should be more like Scandinavia, by moving away from socialism the ruins people the world over, and more towards Capitalism, which works every single time it is tried, and Scandinavia is proof of exactly that.

Lol I don't understand where you are getting this idea that I oppose capitalism. Of course I favor it. Countries like Norway just do it better.

Great! Let's do it better like they do. Less regulations. Less taxes. More free trade and lower tariffs. Let's do capitalism like they do!

I'm not sure where your logic of lower taxes is coming from when you discuss corporate tax rates. Yes the actual percentage is lower in those countries, but their economies and populations are also significantly smaller. The US needs high taxes to pay for all of the government services provided. I mean my god, the US spends more on defense then all of our allies do combined.

I question the notion that the economies are less regulated. The US would of course have more regulations considering the sheer size our economy and nation. Consumer protection laws are much better in other counties than here.

There is no evidence at all, that consumer protection laws are better in other countries. You just made that up.

Well again, companies are going to invest where they can get the biggest returns on investment.

If I am going to open a lemonade stand, and I can open it here in Hilliard, or across the road in Columbus, with the difference being that Columbus has a 5% lower tax rate.... where am I going to open the stand? In Columbus. (literally the city limit is the road my home sits on, so I can cross the street, and pay less tax).

Well, the bigger the company, and the bigger the dollar amount of investment, the bigger difference that tax rate makes.

If I'm going to invest hundreds of millions into a project, and have a proposed net profit of $50 Million a year.... which place do you want that investment? In a country with a 40% tax rate, or 20% tax rate? Do you want to lose $10 Million in taxes, or $20 Million?

The left-winger keep complaining that companies invest overseas... that companies are not bringing money back to invest in the US.......... DUR!!! Wonder why???

It's pretty obvious to those of us on the right. I guess being able to do basic math is advantage over the left.

 

[Andylusion]

As to the comment that for every immigrant Canada takes in, the U.S. takes in 9, but your population is 10 times greater than ours so we should be taking in far fewer immigrants...

Existing population is not a determining factor in the demand for entry papers ... quality of life is and your contention that Canadian life is so superior to the US is not supported by the preferred destination of immigrants.

Your conclusions are based on faulty logic, at best.

We turn away far more potential immigrants than we take in. The waiting list to get in is about 3 years right now. That is

Also, if you come here illegally, good luck finding work. Employers are legally required to request an employee's Social Insurance Card. Not their number, their actual card. And a copy of the card, made by the employer is to be kept in their file.

Without a SIN card, you can't get a job, welfare or any government service. Without landed immigrant status, you can't get a SIN card.

This is why Americans saying their country is being victimized by illegal immigrants is ridiculous. When illegals arrive, they can easily get jobs, drivers licenses and other government services. The ease with which illegals can function in the U.S. Is an open invitation and one which Republicans are resistant to shutting down.

That Americans keep blaming the illegals for coming, instead of the government which tolerates their presence as a supply of cheap labour, makes the situation almost laughable.

Illegal immigration isn't a problem for Canada because we don't tolerate it.

That's not true though. The I-9 and identification is required to get a job, and a drivers license.

The problem is, it's easy to get fake identification.

There is just no possible way that the government could check the identification of 142 Million jobs across the entire country. And even if they did... it still wouldn't work. There are too many under-the-table jobs. I used to work for a parts store here, and there were a group of Mexicans who would walk in, buy stuff, and pay with all cash, all covered in grease and oil from head to foot. It was a back yard repair shop, run by illegals. They hired illegals, and lived fixing cars. Good group of guys honestly.

But how exactly would you propose we stop that? The entire business operated cash only. No banks accounts, no electronic transfers. Of course no IRS forms, or Social Security payments. And obviously no I-9s to turn in.

What is your solution?

 

[Billy000]

lol so your brilliant solution is to completely privatize our education system? Are you that dense? How the **** would that help? Either way it is retarded considering a dozen developed counties have better student performance based on socialized systems.

Private schools often have better academic outcomes, and do so at a lower cost. Yes, it would help.

I compared three school system, right here in Central Ohio. Columbus Academy, a private school system. Columbus public, and Upper Arlington Schools, a suburb.

The worst performing was Columbus public, with the worst grades and educational outcomes. The best, was Academy with the best grades and outcomes.

And yet, I looked up how much each system was spending per student. The Academy was spending less money than Columbus or Upper Arlington. And Columbus Public, was spending the most per student, and by a wide margin.

We've played it your socialized way. It sucks. We spend the most money, and have marginal results. The capitalist schools, spend the least money, and have the best results.

Yes absolutely. We should privatize the schools. You claim to be all about facts, but every time you are confronted with facts, you ignore them, and make up excuses. Ignorant liar.

Lol your idea of evidence is comparing a grand total three schools only one of which is private? You also haven't explained why a dozen socialized school systems in other nations have better student performances.

Because many are not nearly as socialized as you think. Finland has many private schools. They compete directly with public schools, which forces them to do better.... or lose customers. *Gasp* Free-market competition, bedrock of capitalism. Wow.

Another aspect is that you are not entitled to education in many of these countries. If you don't make the grades in Finland, they kick you out.... even the public schools.

In fact most of those schools that do better than the US, have an exact opposite philosophy to the "equality entitlement" belief system.

South Korea has been praised by Obama as a model to follow for their high education outcomes. But, in their system, you have to pass entrance exams for any high school you wish to enter. If you don't pass, you don't go. No child left behind, isn't a policy there. If you don't meet the minimum requirements for the least of high schools, you don't go to high school.

And high schools compete for students as much as the other way around. If your school sucks... students will not apply to go there (unless perhaps they can't qualify for anywhere else). But if not enough students show up, your school closes, and all those teachers lose their jobs.

Quite a bit different than the American "I have a Union and Tenure, screw the students" attitude we see in our public socialized 'no capitalist competition' system. And by the way.... I had to personally deal with such teachers when I was a student. So don't even try and tell me it's not that way.

Dude stop you're just making shit up as you go along. These school systems are not more private then the US. Norway's public education is completely free and their students do better on average. The same goes for Australia.

Tell me, how exacty would poor kids in the US get an education with a privatized system? The US ranks as one of the worst in child povety rates among developed nations. 15% of the US population lives in poverty. Many fAmiles could not possibly afford to send their students to privatized schools. In order for a private system to work, parents would have to put up size able fees.

Private Schools for the Poor - Education Next Education Next

Happens all over the world.

The Beautiful Tree A Personal Journey Into How the World s Poorest People Are Educating Themselves James Tooley 9781933995922 Amazon.com Books

Very well documented.



Private schools in the most impoverished countries in the world.... consistently out perform public schools. And the poorest people can afford it.

I see no logical reason to assume that if people in 3rd world countries can afford private schools, that those of earn the minimum wage in the US, can't afford them.

Now, right now they can't. That's true. Because we have bred this entitlement mentality, where people think they shouldn't have to pay anything to have their kids educated. Thus, there are no low-income private schools, like there are all over the poorer places of the world.

If we had more of a "you must earn education" belief system, more people would be willing to pay to educate their kids, and there would be more low-cost education options.

Even so, we do have private schools that cost only $500 a month. And those that cost more, many have tuition assistance and scholarships. I read where some of the Catholic schools are only $5,000 a year, and nearly all the students have some amount of scholarship funds.

So it is possible, and we can do it. And universally, private schools routinely out perform public ones. Why are you against the poorest people getting a better education?

First of all, you are changing the subject. The discussion is about the performance of public schools here in comparison to public schools.in other developed nations. It's already been established that the US school system sucks.

Part of the reason why private schools do better than public schools is because of funding. The US's public schools are severely under-funded. They lack proper resources therefore school performance of the students' suffer. I think you want to make this connection between "government bureaucracy" and student performance but that's ridiculous. Private schools do better because of funding. Many of them can afford to pay their teachers more as well. There is no other possible explanation for why this is. You also need to take into account the type of kids who go to private schools. Their families are well off. Children growing up in financially secure homes do better in school regardless of whether or not they are in public schools. In the video, the interviewer asks the guy what exactly makes the school performance better in private schools and he gives a laughable, disingenuous answer: "well government jobs suck!" and gives an anecdotal story of a teacher sleeping in class. That's just stupid. He is so full of shit.

Your first article offers examples of the poor in third world countries pay very low fees but does not offer an explanation for how the school is funded. How could the school run properly with such a low rate? They would have to be receiving government assistance.

$500 a month? Are you insane? You have no idea what wages are in this country. We have one of the worst child poverty rates in the developed world. 15% of the country lives in poverty. 18 million people make less than $10.10 per hour. Tel me, what if parents just refuse to pay the fee? Are they required by law to pay this amount? I mean if kids aren't legally obligated to go to school, then would most even go? What happens if the parents can't/won't pay the amount? It's interesting that you bring up the typical "free lunch speech" while also suggesting giving scholarships to these poor families.

Tell me, whats to stop these for profit schools to jack up their prices for, you know, the sake of profit? Why put kids at risk like that?

 

[Billy000]

"They have more capitalism then we do"

Is that your idea of a "fact"? What does that even mean?

What separates US's economy from country's like Norway or Sweden are honest to god labor rights like maternity leave and paid time off. Norway also ranks as one of the happiest of populations on the planet. Among developed nations, the US is near the bottom.

It is in many ways easier to start a company, and make tons of money in Norway and Sweden, than it is in the US even. That's what capitalism is all about. Using your own capital to make yourself wealthy.

Best Countries for Business List - Forbes

Forbes lists top countries to start a business in.........

Number ONE...... Denmark..... *gasp*
Number FIVE..... Sweden.... *gasp*
Number SEVEN... Norway.... *gasp*
Number TEN..... Finland..... *gasp*
Number FIFTEEN... Iceland.... *gasp*

Number EIGHTEEN.... The USA

Now do you get it? All of those countries that you just said we should be more like, are all hot beds of right-wing raw Capitalism.

All of them are higher on the list of places for Capitalist to go engage in Capitalism, than the US.

List of largest Nordic companies - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Some of the biggest global corporations in the world, operate out of these pro-capitalist countries.

Do you support that?

The irony is, I actually do support what Bernie said. We should be more like Scandinavia, by moving away from socialism the ruins people the world over, and more towards Capitalism, which works every single time it is tried, and Scandinavia is proof of exactly that.

Lol I don't understand where you are getting this idea that I oppose capitalism. Of course I favor it. Countries like Norway just do it better.

Great! Let's do it better like they do. Less regulations. Less taxes. More free trade and lower tariffs. Let's do capitalism like they do!

I'm not sure where your logic of lower taxes is coming from when you discuss corporate tax rates. Yes the actual percentage is lower in those countries, but their economies and populations are also significantly smaller. The US needs high taxes to pay for all of the government services provided. I mean my god, the US spends more on defense then all of our allies do combined.

I question the notion that the economies are less regulated. The US would of course have more regulations considering the sheer size our economy and nation. Consumer protection laws are much better in other counties than here.

There is no evidence at all, that consumer protection laws are better in other countries. You just made that up.

Well again, companies are going to invest where they can get the biggest returns on investment.

If I am going to open a lemonade stand, and I can open it here in Hilliard, or across the road in Columbus, with the difference being that Columbus has a 5% lower tax rate.... where am I going to open the stand? In Columbus. (literally the city limit is the road my home sits on, so I can cross the street, and pay less tax).

Well, the bigger the company, and the bigger the dollar amount of investment, the bigger difference that tax rate makes.

If I'm going to invest hundreds of millions into a project, and have a proposed net profit of $50 Million a year.... which place do you want that investment? In a country with a 40% tax rate, or 20% tax rate? Do you want to lose $10 Million in taxes, or $20 Million?

The left-winger keep complaining that companies invest overseas... that companies are not bringing money back to invest in the US.......... DUR!!! Wonder why???

It's pretty obvious to those of us on the right. I guess being able to do basic math is advantage over the left.

No evidence of consumer protection laws huh? There are thousands of chemicals in the US free market today that have not been scientifically tested. Many of those chemicals are banned in other countries. The Monsanto corporation is banned in a dozen countries yet wreaks havoc here in the US on farmers and the agricultural industry.

Untested chemicals are everywhere thanks to a 39-year-old US law. Will the Senate finally act Life and style The Guardian

You know what's just as dangerous as big government? Big business doing whatever the **** they want. You should appreciate the function of what our government does to protect consumers.

Tell me, if we lowered the corporate tax rate, what do you think that will to the nation's deficit? You thought 18 trillion in debt was bad, think how much worse it would get. Of course the actual effective tax rate for big corporations is 10% because of loopholes. That's a big reason why this country is in so much debt. How about the programs that the corporate tax rate pays for like our military and infrastructure system which is currently crumbling? How would public schools fair if their funding was cut. You really shouldn't be concerned about our tax rate being considering that corporate profits are at an all time high...

The true moochers in society are republicans who refuse to pay for the government services they use everyday.

 

[oldernwiser]

He's right. Sander's entire political position is dictated by FACTS. You know those pesky things republicans try to avoid to win over a stupid American populace.

Bernie Sanders I can beat Hillary Clinton - CBS News

He has a long shot. I know that. He probably ultimately won't become president, but you know his message will at least be heard. Hopefully something comes out of that.

The Koch brothers donated close to a billion to the republican campaign. Thats twice as much of the funding for the entire 2012 republican campaign. Two guys essentially comprise an entire third party.

Why are average joe republicans okay with that?

Hm.... so Sanders thinks we should be more like Scandinavia... and you claim to be all about facts.

Alright.... none of the above countries has a minimum wage. Are you supporting elimination of the minimum wage?

Corporate tax in the above countries is 23.5%, 20%, 20%, 27%, 22%.
In the US, it's 40%. Are you supporting cutting the corporate tax by half?

All of the above countries have an average international trade tariff of between 0% and 1%. Norway has an average tariff on imported goods of just 0.3%. The US has an average import tariff of 1.5% and over. Are you supporting cutting tariffs and supporting open markets and free-trade?

So....... here are some facts. And you want us to be like Scandinavia. Do you still want us to be like Scandinavia, or are you ignoring some facts?

Which is it?

I don't know about your perception here, but it seems to me that if those countries have the ability to be prosperous with those numbers then they might just be worthy of study at least. I'll tell you what I'm NOT for - it's doing anything else at all without knowing what we're doing, how it's expected to impact the country, and not having an objective means of measuring that impact. I'm NOT for doing things that we've done before simply because it's what we've done before.

Minimum wage is only important if the cost of goods has outstripped the aggregate wages paid. Does Scandinavia have a way to keep prices from rising, or do employers simply adjust wages as they become more profitable? And if the latter is the case and people can better afford the goods they make domestically, why would you need to artificially restrict trade with tariffs?

Yes, I like facts. But for them to be useful, you need to provide ALL the facts and not just the ones which support your viewpoint. Bernie COULD be wrong here, but I haven't seen anything to significantly say that he is. On the other hand, we have many years of empirical evidence to show what this country has gotten wrong.