It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
SFBv420.0bwaahhh sugarhood sucks so highly overated and priced
i don't leave broburbia and irl interactions w/ stokeless dipshits aint big on the 2do list.
bernie called said ya aint gots nuff class to pull of low let alone middle
truth is son most everyone in the middle class i know is gonna be fine regardless of who ends up in the white house or congress
but it sure gives you attention whore polifuctards fucks of many russled jimmies to give thinkin it really matters
Im paying the cheapest rent ive ever paid here in Salt Lake now that im in Sugarhood.
There are very few middle class families who are doing well. The average Male worker makes a little over 33k annually.
Thats about all I could make out of what you wrote. Idk Maybe write it down first before you type it?
ndyeUse portions of Sanders' proposed tax on wallstreet transactions to allow those with publicly and privately held student loans to refinance their loans at lower interest rates so students loans are no longer profit drivers in the way they are now.
As someone with inside knowledge of the student loan industry, they don't make too much money.
CampeadorSo what I'm understanding is that you'd be fine with letting people who do not pay into the system die, especially if they require expensive medical care?
Sweden is a perfect example of the ill effects of excessive immigration, especially from the tribal populations of the middle east. There is a direct correlation of Muslim migrants and those born of migrants with the rise in rape and crime statistics. Sweden needs to begin sweeping deportations of chronically unemployed migrants and criminal "asylum seekers" (almost all from North Africa and the Middle East i.e. Muslims). Norway has taken steps in the right direction, and lo and behold! The crime rate has dropped significantly.
"Kvigne said it was important to view the high number of deportations made by PU in the context of falling crime rates across the country."
However, not to change this into an immigration debate, my main point bringing it up was to point out flaws in the Nordic models. Basically that socialists cannot have it both ways, a generous welfare state coupled with open borders is not possible, especially when the welfare state primarily benefits a migrant class responsible for most of the crime against the native population that pays their benefits.
I am sorry to hear about your friend's roommate, Europe's systems of justice are often times even worse than our own flawed system (have you seen the prison-hotels in the Netherlands?)
And while I agree with increasing the severity of incarceration, from what I understand the left-wing lawyers here in the US have prohibited inmates from being obligated into forced labor.
I haven't stated that Sanders would turn the U.S. into a socialist or communist country overnight, but he would be in a position to do a huge amount of damage. Few thought Salvador Allende would be that bad and he practically destroyed Chile's economy before he was ousted and Chile returned to economic freedom and prosperity. Unfortunately, the Chilean socialists still seek to undo everything Chile has gained.
That's not what I'm saying really... If I were in power to form the blueprint for the system, it would be socialized healthcare, and you'd have to either pay into it, or contribute to society in some positive fashion to keep it. This doesn't mean that you have to be working some super important job.. you could be a janitor for all I care, but at least you're doing something. If you're a deadbeat to the point where you refuse to work, I'd make it WELL fucking known that you will not receive government paid-for healthcare services. You'd be on the hook for that yourself. You wouldn't die, necessarily, but if you refuse time and time again to even attempt to be a contributing member of society, and are in a mental state where you're obviously making that your choice, then yeah. No NHS for you.
Either way... socialism has nothing to do with immigration policy whatsoever. Cuba has a communist government, but it's not like you can just immigrate to Cuba all willy-nilly, "step right up you're the next contestant on who want's to be a revolutionary". If you want to debate immigration policy, then fine.. but it's entirely tangental to the discussion at hand here, so probably best to bring that up in the immigration thread.
it's not just left wing lawyers prohibiting forced labour amongst inmates - it's pretty much everyone for centuries now. I don't know the exact laws at hand, but if my memory serves me right, something I learned early on in my government studies was that the USA had some 'no forced labour' legislation written in during reconstruction. It's another debate of course, but I will say, that prison labor is probably a bit better than solitary confinement... at the same time though, it would be absolutely asinine to implement it in the USA right now given the run-away state of the growing prison industrial complex. They'd basically start throwing people in jail just for the slave labour as if it's become something like it's Ireland under British rule. A situation that, for lack of a more fun word would be extremely ungood and/or terribad.
As for Sanders... there's no way he'd be able to put in place any socialist anything in the current climate of washington. Obama couldn't even put a socialized healthcare system in place when his party controlled both houses of congress... How the fuck do you think Sanders would be able to do anything with a House chamber controlled by a bunch of Republicans "No-Sayers"
Shit. He couldn't even replace ginsberg with another ginsberg-esqe justice, due to the current psycho congressional climate. (that said, the Senate could flip democrat in 2016 due to the states involved, so there would at least be things put onto the table)
As for comparing Chile to the USA... Hahaha dude, stop comparing countries that are absolutely in no way related in culture or history. Chile is only related to the USA in that it was 'founded' as part of a colonized world. Outside of that, completely fucking different. Pretty sure the USA has never had a dictator... not to mention one like Pinochet.
SANDERS WANTS TO GIVE EVERY FULL TIME WORKER TWO WEEKS PAID VACATION. MUTHA FUCKAS ON FACEBOOK ARE MAAAD. I THINK IF A BUSINESS CAN ONLY AFFORD TO PAY SLAVE WAGES AND COULD NEVER FATHOM GIVING AN EMPLOYEE TWO WEEKS PAID VACATION DUE TO FINANCIAL REASONS
THEN THAT BUSINESS SHOULD CLOSE.
DlCKSANDERS WANTS TO GIVE EVERY FULL TIME WORKER TWO WEEKS PAID VACATION. MUTHA FUCKAS ON FACEBOOK ARE MAAAD. I THINK IF A BUSINESS CAN ONLY AFFORD TO PAY SLAVE WAGES AND COULD NEVER FATHOM GIVING AN EMPLOYEE TWO WEEKS PAID VACATION DUE TO FINANCIAL REASONS
THEN THAT BUSINESS SHOULD CLOSE.
Say goodbye to every small business and hello to chain conglomerants everywhere.
DlCKSANDERS WANTS TO GIVE EVERY FULL TIME WORKER TWO WEEKS PAID VACATION. MUTHA FUCKAS ON FACEBOOK ARE MAAAD. I THINK IF A BUSINESS CAN ONLY AFFORD TO PAY SLAVE WAGES AND COULD NEVER FATHOM GIVING AN EMPLOYEE TWO WEEKS PAID VACATION DUE TO FINANCIAL REASONS
THEN THAT BUSINESS SHOULD CLOSE.
Hahahaha say goodbye to full-time employees, between that and Obamacare that will be the death knell. How much paid vacation should part-time employees get? And why should a business pay for someone's leisure time?
Labor is simply an input for firms along with capital goods, firms create wealth by combining these inputs. If you make the labor input too costly, firms will shift towards capital goods.
I strongly suggest you shut the hell up until you've taken at least a full year of principles of economics. These are the basics, but they may be too much for you.
Sanders is a demagogue, and you're stupid enough to eat it up.
DingoSeanAs for comparing Chile to the USA... Hahaha dude, stop comparing countries that are absolutely in no way related in culture or history. Chile is only related to the USA in that it was 'founded' as part of a colonized world. Outside of that, completely fucking different. Pretty sure the USA has never had a dictator... not to mention one like Pinochet.
Sure, just like Costa Rica was terrible example, I feel like I'm still being read to from "The World According to Dingo".
Chile, like Costa Rica, is a perfectly good example. Chile had the longest uninterrupted functioning democracy in Latin America. Chile also had one of the best economies in Latin America at the time. A demagogue Marxist by the name of Salvador Allende weaseled his way into power with 36.62% of the vote. From there he forced through his socialist agenda, destroying the Chilean economy (similar to current-day Venezuela). Chile, under Augusto Pinochet, took the necessary measures to remove him from power and eliminate the highest-risk communist agitators that remained (who were being trained by the Soviets and Cubans). Now Chile has the best economy in Latin America, but the communist agitators have returned. Fortunately, the army still remains conservative and the socialists know they can only push so far.
If only Venezuela had an Augusto Pinochet to purge Maduro and his corrupt government from power, just like el-Sisi removed the cancerous Muslim Brotherhood from Egypt.
While this scenario is unlikely for the US, the potential for economic devastation is still substantial.
CampeadorHahahaha say goodbye to full-time employees, between that and Obamacare that will be the death knell. How much paid vacation should part-time employees get? And why should a business pay for someone's leisure time?
Labor is simply an input for firms along with capital goods, firms create wealth by combining these inputs. If you make the labor input too costly, firms will shift towards capital goods.
I strongly suggest you shut the hell up until you've taken at least a full year of principles of economics. These are the basics, but they may be too much for you.
Sanders is a demagogue, and you're stupid enough to eat it up.
Yes we understand how a business works. I took my years worth of college level economics in Highschool. Typical economist... humans are just numbers... Since when are all businesses firms? You are blinded by the inside of your own asshole.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_statutory_minimum_employment_leave_by_country
Even china has 5 days of paid leave. You may use the appropriate jargon to make it sound like you know whats going on but you are actually quite clueless. Ive been reading your posts, its a shame someone as capable as you has been lost to misinderstanding and ignorace.
Happier workers are more productive workers.
Also, Can we quit calling people names? Its borderline hilarious when I read your insults. Are you 12?
CampeadorSure, just like Costa Rica was terrible example, I feel like I'm still being read to from "The World According to Dingo".
Chile, like Costa Rica, is a perfectly good example. Chile had the longest uninterrupted functioning democracy in Latin America. Chile also had one of the best economies in Latin America at the time. A demagogue Marxist by the name of Salvador Allende weaseled his way into power with 36.62% of the vote. From there he forced through his socialist agenda, destroying the Chilean economy (similar to current-day Venezuela). Chile, under Augusto Pinochet, took the necessary measures to remove him from power and eliminate the highest-risk communist agitators that remained (who were being trained by the Soviets and Cubans). Now Chile has the best economy in Latin America, but the communist agitators have returned. Fortunately, the army still remains conservative and the socialists know they can only push so far.
If only Venezuela had an Augusto Pinochet to purge Maduro and his corrupt government from power, just like el-Sisi removed the cancerous Muslim Brotherhood from Egypt.
While this scenario is unlikely for the US, the potential for economic devastation is still substantial.
EXTREMELY Unlikely. Are economy is already devastaded ya dummy. Did you forget about Income inequality and the national deficit along with out trillions in Debt. You know in the 40s 50s and 60s we actually were number 1 in areas such as education and productivity. The 1% have it better than ever. For everyone else its getting harder and harder.... Economic devastation.... SMH. The top 100th of the 1% have quadrupled their wealth in the last 30 years. The average american male worker is making $18k less than he did in 1974 We are already headed there chump.
Whos side are you on here? What jobs have you held in your life? What do your parents do? You seem to be experiencing a lot of disconnect with what is actually going on. You keep talking about latin countries as if they are relevant to our complex economic system and paired with your ignorant insults is making you look like the asshole you must be living in.
DlCKEXTREMELY Unlikely. Are economy is already devastaded ya dummy. Did you forget about Income inequality and the national deficit along with out trillions in Debt. You know in the 40s 50s and 60s we actually were number 1 in areas such as education and productivity. The 1% have it better than ever. For everyone else its getting harder and harder.... Economic devastation.... SMH. The top 100th of the 1% have quadrupled their wealth in the last 30 years. The average american male worker is making $18k less than he did in 1974 We are already headed there chump.
Whos side are you on here? What jobs have you held in your life? What do your parents do? You seem to be experiencing a lot of disconnect with what is actually going on. You keep talking about latin countries as if they are relevant to our complex economic system and paired with your ignorant insults is making you look like the asshole you must be living in.
Whos side are you on here? What jobs have you held in your life? What do your parents do? You seem to be experiencing a lot of disconnect with what is actually going on. You keep talking about latin countries as if they are relevant to our complex economic system and paired with your ignorant insults is making you look like the asshole you must be living in.
Maybe he's living in South America. It would explain why he keeps using those countries for his shitty, borderline irrelevant examples.
DlCKYes we understand how a business works. I took my years worth of college level economics in Highschool. Typical economist... humans are just numbers... Since when are all businesses firms? You are blinded by the inside of your own asshole.
Thank you for telling me everything I needed to know.
Could you perhaps send me the name and email of your HS economics teacher (who I'm assuming may simply have been a coach who they needed to find a job at the school for)? I would like to send him or her a nice email with evidence (provided kindly by you) of how abysmal he or she is at teaching the basics of economics.
You do realize home-economics isn't actually an economics class, right?
Why don't you go back to writing in caps like the mentally deficient recent HS graduate that you are. What a mistake it was lowering the voting age to 18.
And for the record, all businesses are firms. Your particular public education has failed you miserably.
CampeadorThank you for telling me everything I needed to know.
Could you perhaps send me the name and email of your HS economics teacher (who I'm assuming may simply have been a coach who they needed to find a job at the school for)? I would like to send him or her a nice email with evidence (provided kindly by you) of how abysmal he or she is at teaching the basics of economics.
You do realize home-economics isn't actually an economics class, right?
Why don't you go back to writing in caps like the mentally deficient recent HS graduate that you are. What a mistake it was lowering the voting age to 18.
And for the record, all businesses are firms. Your particular public education has failed you miserably.
Afraid to quote the shit im right about?
Please demonstrate proof of my extreme misunderstanding of economics, because im looking at my portfolio and am trying to figure out how I was able to see a 9% return on my investments last month while not knowing anything about the economy. Im also trying to look for something that would lead me to believe that you have some sort of credetials regarding economics but instead you are resorting to semantics, just to seem relevant. Ive also yet to hear any sort of logical rebuttal towards any of the facts ive pointed out. Regardless, your attempts at insulting me are quite comical so please, continue.
Granite_StateI think he's just a tad bit self righteous...
Maybe he's living in South America. It would explain why he keeps using those countries for his shitty, borderline irrelevant examples.
Because any example from Latin America, southern Europe, or east Asia is irrelevant, but any example from Scandinavia is perfectly relevant. You've got impeccable logic.
Regardless of the fact that your assumptions about Scandinavia are wrong, since all the Scandinavian countries have been steadily moving to the right as they become slowly aware of their failed experiments in socialism and multiculturalism, you've also failed to explain why any example I've provided is incorrect or irrelevant.
My original examples detailed nations that depend on the US for their national defense. The Chilean example was to provide details on the potential damage that socialist-Marxist presidents can have on a previously successful country.
DlCKAfraid to quote the shit im right about?
Please demonstrate proof of my extreme misunderstanding of economics, because im looking at my portfolio and am trying to figure out how I was able to see a 9% return on my investments last month while not knowing anything about the economy. Im also trying to look for something that would lead me to believe that you have some sort of credetials regarding economics but instead you are resorting to semantics, just to seem relevant. Ive also yet to hear any sort of logical rebuttal towards any of the facts ive pointed out. Regardless, your attempts at insulting me are quite comical so please, continue.
You see, I would actually address anything you were "right about" if that were even remotely the case. All you have provided is the same old tired leftist rhetoric about the "1%". If you want to understand the success of the 1% elites, take a closer look at how the involvement of government affected their fortunes.
Also, picking and choosing stocks at random for a mock portfolio does not indicate any financial know how.
CampeadorBecause any example from Latin America, southern Europe, or east Asia is irrelevant, but any example from Scandinavia is perfectly relevant. You've got impeccable logic.
Regardless of the fact that your assumptions about Scandinavia are wrong, since all the Scandinavian countries have been steadily moving to the right as they become slowly aware of their failed experiments in socialism and multiculturalism, you've also failed to explain why any example I've provided is incorrect or irrelevant.
My original examples detailed nations that depend on the US for their national defense. The Chilean example was to provide details on the potential damage that socialist-Marxist presidents can have on a previously successful country.
No, it's because you chose poor, corrupt South and Latin American countries as your example of what the U.S. will become under Sanders. It's ridiculous and half the kids in this thread see it as ridiculous. Costa Rica? Chile? Get real. Why do I have to reiterate what others have already said? Wouldn't that be redundant? Then you pick apart the Scandinavian countries whilst completely ignoring countries like Canada and the U.K., which are perfect examples of a working system, and are more related to the U.S. than Sweden or Costa Rica or Chile. It's just getting to the point where its not even worth the effort to have a discussion with you because you keep spewing the same dribble and ignoring every valid piece of reasoning that others bring up. You pick the worst examples to further your point and thats why I'm just not going to take you seriously.
And for the record, I agree with you in certain regards. I don't want to pay into a system that benefits the lazy and unemployed. But the current system is equally if not more flawed. Once again I've mentioned the preexisting conditions issue which you ignore. I mention how a company can drop you, a paying customer, if they feel you aren't cost effective, which you ignore. Those problems are more fucked up than a lazy person leeching of the system, but capitalism right? Fuck people that want and can afford healthcare but aren't granted it right? Talk about flawed logic.
Granite_StateNo, it's because you chose poor, corrupt South and Latin American countries as your example of what the U.S. will become under Sanders. It's ridiculous and half the kids in this thread see it as ridiculous. Costa Rica? Chile? Get real. Why do I have to reiterate what others have already said? Wouldn't that be redundant? Then you pick apart the Scandinavian countries whilst completely ignoring countries like Canada and the U.K., which are perfect examples of a working system, and are more related to the U.S. than Sweden or Costa Rica or Chile. It's just getting to the point where its not even worth the effort to have a discussion with you because you keep spewing the same dribble and ignoring every valid piece of reasoning that others bring up. You pick the worst examples to further your point and thats why I'm just not going to take you seriously.
And for the record, I agree with you in certain regards. I don't want to pay into a system that benefits the lazy and unemployed. But the current system is equally if not more flawed. Once again I've mentioned the preexisting conditions issue which you ignore. I mention how a company can drop you, a paying customer, if they feel you aren't cost effective, which you ignore. Those problems are more fucked up than a lazy person leeching of the system, but capitalism right? Fuck people that want and can afford healthcare but aren't granted it right? Talk about flawed logic.
Again, you prove that do not know anything about Latin America.
Chile is not a poor, nor a corrupt country (by world standards). Costa Rica is also not corrupt. Stop commenting on Latin America when you haven't got a clue. Latin America extends further than Mexico. None of the examples I picked were poor examples related to the argument I was making. Furthermore, neither Chile nor Costa Rica have socialized medicine, and I didn't bring up either within that context. So please, within the context that I used those nations as examples, why are they poor fits?
And sure I'll concede that Canada and the UK have somewhat functioning health services (even though the NHS allowed my grandfather to die due to their incompetence). That doesn't mean their systems are models for health care, their systems are wrought with their own flaws. And again, just because certain governments provide health care does not make health care a "human right".
CampeadorHahahaha say goodbye to full-time employees, between that and Obamacare that will be the death knell. How much paid vacation should part-time employees get? And why should a business pay for someone's leisure time?
Labor is simply an input for firms along with capital goods, firms create wealth by combining these inputs. If you make the labor input too costly, firms will shift towards capital goods.
I strongly suggest you shut the hell up until you've taken at least a full year of principles of economics. These are the basics, but they may be too much for you.
Sanders is a demagogue, and you're stupid enough to eat it up.
And here's the thing... I don't think anyone on the left is extremely stoked on Obamacare to the point where they're singing it's praises as the best system ever... I for one was pissed off to no end when I realized that a single payer program wouldn't be installed, because it meant costs would be compounded elsewhere... Again, the only thing that Obamacare has really done is make it so insurance companies can't just deny you healthcare for made-up reasons like 'pre-existing conditions' or going to the wrong hospital during an emergency, or whatever other fucking bullshit.
Obamacare is not perfect by any ANY measure... but it's at least actually allowing people to be insured for once, and actually BE insured.
Again, Obamacare is a conservative program. It was proposed by a conservative thinktank in the 1980's. It's by no means socialist at all. Republicans are just mad because it wasn't their president who implemented it. as soon as they get a republican in there to "reform" it, they'll be singing it's praises for years to come.
CampeadorSure, just like Costa Rica was terrible example, I feel like I'm still being read to from "The World According to Dingo".
Chile, like Costa Rica, is a perfectly good example. Chile had the longest uninterrupted functioning democracy in Latin America. Chile also had one of the best economies in Latin America at the time. A demagogue Marxist by the name of Salvador Allende weaseled his way into power with 36.62% of the vote. From there he forced through his socialist agenda, destroying the Chilean economy (similar to current-day Venezuela). Chile, under Augusto Pinochet, took the necessary measures to remove him from power and eliminate the highest-risk communist agitators that remained (who were being trained by the Soviets and Cubans). Now Chile has the best economy in Latin America, but the communist agitators have returned. Fortunately, the army still remains conservative and the socialists know they can only push so far.
If only Venezuela had an Augusto Pinochet to purge Maduro and his corrupt government from power, just like el-Sisi removed the cancerous Muslim Brotherhood from Egypt.
While this scenario is unlikely for the US, the potential for economic devastation is still substantial.
"Lol" is the world according to Campeador...
Ah, yes... he weaseled his way into the presidency... against a guy who had beaten Allende just 32-28% 12 years prior, and another guy who had run an incredibly similar campaign. Given a 2-man runoff, you can bet the final vote would have probably gone to Allende, given Tomic was for nationalization as well. You can also look into how much the USA was trying to rig the election as a reason Alessandri even competed... I mean, the only reason Alessandri even likely ran was because the USA planned to use him to win, then resign shortly after, and create a 2nd election allowing Montalva (the incumbent) to run again. What kind of strong democracy is this? That's not democracy... That's not a means to a strong economy... that's not a means to a satisfied populace whos interests are represented...
Meanwhile, though Allende was actually democratically elected, you praise the efforts of Pinochet? A dude who turned the national stadium of the country, that had served as the world cup final just over a decade prior, into a massive concentration camp? Neat-o.
While Allende wasn't perfect I'm sure, his sweeping changes and nationalization of industry and land were massively helpful to the poor. The economy wasn't exactly good in Chile... I mean, it was stable, but the wealth inequality wasn't by any means something to celebrate - rather something to shake your head at.
So yeah, the economy was great for the rich who were all mostly decedents of rich Spaniards who grabbed land during the colonial period, but it wasn't exactly good for the poor in the country. Chile, nor most countries in Latin America ever had a period of homesteading like in Canada or the USA... All the best land was mostly divvied up to colonists. Argentina was a little different of course (and had the largest european immigration on the continent), but Chile is a friggin sliver, so the land was sorted out long prior.
The Whole reason Pinochet entered wasn't because Allende was bad and there was some revolt... it was because the USA was scared shitless by the bullshit Domino Effect, and did everything in their power to destabilize the country... They were scared of a Communist single party state, so they opted for the Facist Pinochet authoritarian route. Yep. That makes so much god damn sense! wow! Good job USA! Thought we were fighting fascism just 30 years prior to this..?
Now, yes... Allende's programs were a bit extreme at the time, and were far from implemented well.. but sanctions imposed by the Nixon Administration are really what did it in. The entire economy of Chile was mostly brought to ruin by what the USA had done to combat the red scare, not by Allende's programs. The USA limited or even froze trade on anything from food during Chile's winter to spare parts to repair imported machinery... The USA also started subsidizing copper production in the American Southwest, and started selling it on the global at a rate that Chile couldn't compete with (Chile has a large copper mining industry) This also hurt other countries at the time, but it definitely hurt Chile...
Therefore, it's completely unfair to point the finger at Allende as for why Chile's economy had issues in the first few years of his presidency. I mean, the Congress in Chile was mostly conservative at the time anyway. It's not as if there wasnt an internal debate.
Additionally, the only reason the economy in Chile began to improve was because the USA basically subsidized it. It was artificial as fuck. The CIA installed economists who were educated in US schools to influence economic theory. They did it in Indonesia with Berkeley students, They did it in Iran, They did it in Japan, and they did it in Chile with the Chicago boys.
As soon as Pinochet was in power, there was push to install free-market economic theory.. this admittedly worked out okay for a while, but 10 years later, a massive recession hit, and it took until Pinochet was out of power and Democracy to be reinstalled for the economy to start really growing again... Additionally, Chile sorta had the same kinda mini-version of what the USA had during the 1950's, only with it's neighbors in South America. While other nations in Latin America were having civil wars, and dealing with some pretty butthole dictators themselves, Chile was bolstered hardcore and was able to outplay it's neighbors who couldn't develop as quickly. The USA basically created Chile as an reverse-domino effect nation. Make sure they stay strong, so others are influenced. It didn't really work so perfectly - especially during the recession, but Chile was able to white-picket fence it for a while.
CampeadorBecause any example from Latin America, southern Europe, or east Asia is irrelevant, but any example from Scandinavia is perfectly relevant. You've got impeccable logic.
Regardless of the fact that your assumptions about Scandinavia are wrong, since all the Scandinavian countries have been steadily moving to the right as they become slowly aware of their failed experiments in socialism and multiculturalism, you've also failed to explain why any example I've provided is incorrect or irrelevant.
So, you say that Scandinavia is moving to the right these days... but that doesn't explain for a second why their economies are so good, and their quality of life ratings are so ridiculously high under the last however many years of democratic socialism... You say they're failing with experiments in socialism, yet they have pretty much kicked ass with it for a while here. The only real comparative negative statistic you'll usually see in regards to scandinavian nations is a high suicide rate, but that has more to do with the sun-less winters and low population density than anything else (low population density correlates directly with suicide rate)
I kinda shake my head at your issue with multi-cultralism as well.. are they just supposed to stay blonde and blue eyed? not allow immigrants in? I'm not sure where you're from, but where I'm from, we celebrate our diversity to the utmost... we look at the melting pot of America as a good thing... If you're putting that down as a negative, then you need to chill on the xenophobia.
CampeadorFurthermore, neither Chile nor Costa Rica have socialized medicine, and I didn't bring up either within that context. So please, within the context that I used those nations as examples, why are they poor fits?
And sure I'll concede that Canada and the UK have somewhat functioning health services (even though the NHS allowed my grandfather to die due to their incompetence). That doesn't mean their systems are models for health care, their systems are wrought with their own flaws. And again, just because certain governments provide health care does not make health care a "human right".
...Uhh what? Costa Rica and Chile absolutely provide universal healthcare... They both have private healthcare insurance systems too I'm sure, just like Canada, Mexico, the UK, and most other nations with single payer programs, but yeah.
You brought up Chile in a context that Sanders could be the next Allende... Which, not only is a terrible example because Chile in 1970 is by no means similar to the USA in 2015 as I already stated, but also because Allende was not only doomed by the efforts of the USA, but also killed. Who's going to do that to Bernie Sanders if he take the Oval Office? The USA is the alpha male of countries... he's not going to go the way of Allende or Mosaddegh or Nkrumah because there's nobody powerful enough...
Hypothetically speaking: The only way this country will go to shit under Sanders, is if those who don't like him domestically decide to fuck it up in order to spite him being elected. This is quite a bit different than some other country influencing a coup in Washington like what happened in Santiago...
to quote every libertarians favourite dude short of Ayn Rand...
We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness;
These three things - life, liberty, pursuit of happiness... these all come from the aforementioned John Locke.. who, stated...
"If God's purpose for me on Earth is my survival and that of my species, and the means to that survival are my life, health, liberty and property — then clearly I don't want anyone to violate my rights to these things"
I don't know about you, but I consider the "preservation of life" to be pretty equatable to healthcare. National defense is certainly a preservation of life, is it not? Yet nobody argues against a national defense... that's become culturally intrinsic as something we need, yea? We have enemies right? We need to protect against them? National Defense isn't exactly cheap, is it? It's not as if National Defense doesn't require a significant amount of our 'property' (money) to go to funding it right? So how does Healthcare detract from this? It's not as if healthcare doesn't save any fewer people than national defense - I and many others could argue that it saves far more - so how could you not say that this is a right?
Alternatively, you state that property is a human right - well, couldn't your own body be considered your property? If not your most important property? In today's day and age where "corporations are people, my friend" could you not say that you as a human body, are worth a damn? Nobody should be able to claim your property - that in this case would be slavery, right? That's part of the whole point of that argument is it not? I own my mind? I own my arms? I own my legs? They're not your feet... those are MY feet... MY elbows. MY dick.
At the end of the day, I consider my health, my family's health, my coworkers health, my communities, health, and really everyone's health to be far more important than the profits of insurance companies who leach off the health requirements of it's customers... In a socialized healthcare system, everyone is contributing to their individual healthcare... if you can afford to pay for a private doctor, be my guest. Congrats, now you don't have to pay into the system... (sounds a lot like if you can afford a bank account in the caymans, but I digress) For the rest of us, pooling our collective funds together to keep us healthy and safe is in the best interest of everyone.. A healthy populace means healthy students means smarter people means more innovation means jobs for workers means healthy workers means better production means better quality of life MEANS PROFIT!!!
DingoSeanAnd here's the thing... I don't think anyone on the left is extremely stoked on Obamacare to the point where they're singing it's praises as the best system ever... I for one was pissed off to no end when I realized that a single payer program wouldn't be installed, because it meant costs would be compounded elsewhere... Again, the only thing that Obamacare has really done is make it so insurance companies can't just deny you healthcare for made-up reasons like 'pre-existing conditions' or going to the wrong hospital during an emergency, or whatever other fucking bullshit.
Obamacare is not perfect by any ANY measure... but it's at least actually allowing people to be insured for once, and actually BE insured.
Again, Obamacare is a conservative program. It was proposed by a conservative thinktank in the 1980's. It's by no means socialist at all. Republicans are just mad because it wasn't their president who implemented it. as soon as they get a republican in there to "reform" it, they'll be singing it's praises for years to come.
"Lol" is the world according to Campeador...
Ah, yes... he weaseled his way into the presidency... against a guy who had beaten Allende just 32-28% 12 years prior, and another guy who had run an incredibly similar campaign. Given a 2-man runoff, you can bet the final vote would have probably gone to Allende, given Tomic was for nationalization as well. You can also look into how much the USA was trying to rig the election as a reason Alessandri even competed... I mean, the only reason Alessandri even likely ran was because the USA planned to use him to win, then resign shortly after, and create a 2nd election allowing Montalva (the incumbent) to run again. What kind of strong democracy is this? That's not democracy... That's not a means to a strong economy... that's not a means to a satisfied populace whos interests are represented...
Meanwhile, though Allende was actually democratically elected, you praise the efforts of Pinochet? A dude who turned the national stadium of the country, that had served as the world cup final just over a decade prior, into a massive concentration camp? Neat-o.
While Allende wasn't perfect I'm sure, his sweeping changes and nationalization of industry and land were massively helpful to the poor. The economy wasn't exactly good in Chile... I mean, it was stable, but the wealth inequality wasn't by any means something to celebrate - rather something to shake your head at.
So yeah, the economy was great for the rich who were all mostly decedents of rich Spaniards who grabbed land during the colonial period, but it wasn't exactly good for the poor in the country. Chile, nor most countries in Latin America ever had a period of homesteading like in Canada or the USA... All the best land was mostly divvied up to colonists. Argentina was a little different of course (and had the largest european immigration on the continent), but Chile is a friggin sliver, so the land was sorted out long prior.
The Whole reason Pinochet entered wasn't because Allende was bad and there was some revolt... it was because the USA was scared shitless by the bullshit Domino Effect, and did everything in their power to destabilize the country... They were scared of a Communist single party state, so they opted for the Facist Pinochet authoritarian route. Yep. That makes so much god damn sense! wow! Good job USA! Thought we were fighting fascism just 30 years prior to this..?
Now, yes... Allende's programs were a bit extreme at the time, and were far from implemented well.. but sanctions imposed by the Nixon Administration are really what did it in. The entire economy of Chile was mostly brought to ruin by what the USA had done to combat the red scare, not by Allende's programs. The USA limited or even froze trade on anything from food during Chile's winter to spare parts to repair imported machinery... The USA also started subsidizing copper production in the American Southwest, and started selling it on the global at a rate that Chile couldn't compete with (Chile has a large copper mining industry) This also hurt other countries at the time, but it definitely hurt Chile...
Therefore, it's completely unfair to point the finger at Allende as for why Chile's economy had issues in the first few years of his presidency. I mean, the Congress in Chile was mostly conservative at the time anyway. It's not as if there wasnt an internal debate.
Additionally, the only reason the economy in Chile began to improve was because the USA basically subsidized it. It was artificial as fuck. The CIA installed economists who were educated in US schools to influence economic theory. They did it in Indonesia with Berkeley students, They did it in Iran, They did it in Japan, and they did it in Chile with the Chicago boys.
As soon as Pinochet was in power, there was push to install free-market economic theory.. this admittedly worked out okay for a while, but 10 years later, a massive recession hit, and it took until Pinochet was out of power and Democracy to be reinstalled for the economy to start really growing again... Additionally, Chile sorta had the same kinda mini-version of what the USA had during the 1950's, only with it's neighbors in South America. While other nations in Latin America were having civil wars, and dealing with some pretty butthole dictators themselves, Chile was bolstered hardcore and was able to outplay it's neighbors who couldn't develop as quickly. The USA basically created Chile as an reverse-domino effect nation. Make sure they stay strong, so others are influenced. It didn't really work so perfectly - especially during the recession, but Chile was able to white-picket fence it for a while.
So, you say that Scandinavia is moving to the right these days... but that doesn't explain for a second why their economies are so good, and their quality of life ratings are so ridiculously high under the last however many years of democratic socialism... You say they're failing with experiments in socialism, yet they have pretty much kicked ass with it for a while here. The only real comparative negative statistic you'll usually see in regards to scandinavian nations is a high suicide rate, but that has more to do with the sun-less winters and low population density than anything else (low population density correlates directly with suicide rate)
I kinda shake my head at your issue with multi-cultralism as well.. are they just supposed to stay blonde and blue eyed? not allow immigrants in? I'm not sure where you're from, but where I'm from, we celebrate our diversity to the utmost... we look at the melting pot of America as a good thing... If you're putting that down as a negative, then you need to chill on the xenophobia.
...Uhh what? Costa Rica and Chile absolutely provide universal healthcare... They both have private healthcare insurance systems too I'm sure, just like Canada, Mexico, the UK, and most other nations with single payer programs, but yeah.
You brought up Chile in a context that Sanders could be the next Allende... Which, not only is a terrible example because Chile in 1970 is by no means similar to the USA in 2015 as I already stated, but also because Allende was not only doomed by the efforts of the USA, but also killed. Who's going to do that to Bernie Sanders if he take the Oval Office? The USA is the alpha male of countries... he's not going to go the way of Allende or Mosaddegh or Nkrumah because there's nobody powerful enough...
Hypothetically speaking: The only way this country will go to shit under Sanders, is if those who don't like him domestically decide to fuck it up in order to spite him being elected. This is quite a bit different than some other country influencing a coup in Washington like what happened in Santiago...
to quote every libertarians favourite dude short of Ayn Rand...
We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness;
These three things - life, liberty, pursuit of happiness... these all come from the aforementioned John Locke.. who, stated...
"If God's purpose for me on Earth is my survival and that of my species, and the means to that survival are my life, health, liberty and property — then clearly I don't want anyone to violate my rights to these things"
I don't know about you, but I consider the "preservation of life" to be pretty equatable to healthcare. National defense is certainly a preservation of life, is it not? Yet nobody argues against a national defense... that's become culturally intrinsic as something we need, yea? We have enemies right? We need to protect against them? National Defense isn't exactly cheap, is it? It's not as if National Defense doesn't require a significant amount of our 'property' (money) to go to funding it right? So how does Healthcare detract from this? It's not as if healthcare doesn't save any fewer people than national defense - I and many others could argue that it saves far more - so how could you not say that this is a right?
Alternatively, you state that property is a human right - well, couldn't your own body be considered your property? If not your most important property? In today's day and age where "corporations are people, my friend" could you not say that you as a human body, are worth a damn? Nobody should be able to claim your property - that in this case would be slavery, right? That's part of the whole point of that argument is it not? I own my mind? I own my arms? I own my legs? They're not your feet... those are MY feet... MY elbows. MY dick.
At the end of the day, I consider my health, my family's health, my coworkers health, my communities, health, and really everyone's health to be far more important than the profits of insurance companies who leach off the health requirements of it's customers... In a socialized healthcare system, everyone is contributing to their individual healthcare... if you can afford to pay for a private doctor, be my guest. Congrats, now you don't have to pay into the system... (sounds a lot like if you can afford a bank account in the caymans, but I digress) For the rest of us, pooling our collective funds together to keep us healthy and safe is in the best interest of everyone.. A healthy populace means healthy students means smarter people means more innovation means jobs for workers means healthy workers means better production means better quality of life MEANS PROFIT!!!
CampeadorHaha well done there buddy, you manage to contribute absolutely nothing to the debate, while fishing for information to launch personal attacks.
I do not see how either of those questions are pertinent to anything that I have said.
Bitch, dont try to steal my rhetoric! What does half the shit you've said to me have anything to do with the conversation. You've resorted to attacking me personally mutiple times because you know you cant refute my logic. Pussy move bro.
CampeadorHaha well done there buddy, you manage to contribute absolutely nothing to the debate, while fishing for information to launch personal attacks.
I do not see how either of those questions are pertinent to anything that I have said.
People with strong religious beliefs tend to believe that gay marriage is wrong, while people with copious amounts of money tend to believe the system isn't fucked. If you arent up there in/towards the 1% than theres a chance you can see the light. Otherwise you have the open mindedness of the average religious extremist.
CampeadorHaha well done there buddy, you manage to contribute absolutely nothing to the debate, while fishing for information to launch personal attacks.
I do not see how either of those questions are pertinent to anything that I have said.
They are pertinent because if you or your family are anywhere around the 1% it would finally help us understand your warped views. But avoiding the question twice...suspicious...
CampeadorAgain, you prove that do not know anything about Latin America.
Chile is not a poor, nor a corrupt country (by world standards). Costa Rica is also not corrupt. Stop commenting on Latin America when you haven't got a clue. Latin America extends further than Mexico. None of the examples I picked were poor examples related to the argument I was making. Furthermore, neither Chile nor Costa Rica have socialized medicine, and I didn't bring up either within that context. So please, within the context that I used those nations as examples, why are they poor fits?
And sure I'll concede that Canada and the UK have somewhat functioning health services (even though the NHS allowed my grandfather to die due to their incompetence). That doesn't mean their systems are models for health care, their systems are wrought with their own flaws. And again, just because certain governments provide health care does not make health care a "human right".
No I concede I don't know much about Latin America, even though my aunt-in-law was from Nicaragua (you know Costa Rica's shitty northern neighbor). But why would I care? Belize, Honduras, Nicaragua, Cuba, Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, Brazil, and Guyana are all shitty countries with very limited economic freedom with Guatemala, Panama, Paraguay, and El Salvador not far behind them. You're right though, Costa Rica is one of the best in the region (10th), even though they have about 50% freedom from corruption, opposed to America's 80%.
"With that context"? You literally used the fact that the U.S. provides defense to countries without an army or with a limited one and that that is the reason why those countries can afford to have single payer systems, making that a strong point of your argument. Then when challenged you listed countries like Costa Rica, South Korea, Taiwan, and what ever other countries that are, in reality, hardly relevant to the U.S. from a social, economic, or cultural perspective.
I won't even get into Chile because I think Dingo covered that topic extensively but I will also concede that Chile shares about as much economic freedom as the U.S.
You say Canada and the U.K. have there own flaws, well so does our past and present system. At least those countries offer coverage to all their citizens and don't deny them it for ridiculous reasons. I'd say our system is far more flawed than theirs. And you know what? That's in part to Obamacare, which like I've said before was a poorly thought out program with good intentions. We still need healthcare reform on massive levels, but at least now everyone has access to healthcare. If you thought we had a good system before you are simply an idiot.
Its easy to compare an idealistic socialistic system to a realistically flawed capitalist system. The uneducated socialist movement among our generation honestly terrifies me for the future of our country.
DingoSeanAnd here's the thing... I don't think anyone on the left is extremely stoked on Obamacare to the point where they're singing it's praises as the best system ever... I for one was pissed off to no end when I realized that a single payer program wouldn't be installed, because it meant costs would be compounded elsewhere... Again, the only thing that Obamacare has really done is make it so insurance companies can't just deny you healthcare for made-up reasons like 'pre-existing conditions' or going to the wrong hospital during an emergency, or whatever other fucking bullshit.
Obamacare is not perfect by any ANY measure... but it's at least actually allowing people to be insured for once, and actually BE insured.
Again, Obamacare is a conservative program. It was proposed by a conservative thinktank in the 1980's. It's by no means socialist at all. Republicans are just mad because it wasn't their president who implemented it. as soon as they get a republican in there to "reform" it, they'll be singing it's praises for years to come.
"Lol" is the world according to Campeador...
Ah, yes... he weaseled his way into the presidency... against a guy who had beaten Allende just 32-28% 12 years prior, and another guy who had run an incredibly similar campaign. Given a 2-man runoff, you can bet the final vote would have probably gone to Allende, given Tomic was for nationalization as well. You can also look into how much the USA was trying to rig the election as a reason Alessandri even competed... I mean, the only reason Alessandri even likely ran was because the USA planned to use him to win, then resign shortly after, and create a 2nd election allowing Montalva (the incumbent) to run again. What kind of strong democracy is this? That's not democracy... That's not a means to a strong economy... that's not a means to a satisfied populace whos interests are represented...
Meanwhile, though Allende was actually democratically elected, you praise the efforts of Pinochet? A dude who turned the national stadium of the country, that had served as the world cup final just over a decade prior, into a massive concentration camp? Neat-o.
While Allende wasn't perfect I'm sure, his sweeping changes and nationalization of industry and land were massively helpful to the poor. The economy wasn't exactly good in Chile... I mean, it was stable, but the wealth inequality wasn't by any means something to celebrate - rather something to shake your head at.
So yeah, the economy was great for the rich who were all mostly decedents of rich Spaniards who grabbed land during the colonial period, but it wasn't exactly good for the poor in the country. Chile, nor most countries in Latin America ever had a period of homesteading like in Canada or the USA... All the best land was mostly divvied up to colonists. Argentina was a little different of course (and had the largest european immigration on the continent), but Chile is a friggin sliver, so the land was sorted out long prior.
The Whole reason Pinochet entered wasn't because Allende was bad and there was some revolt... it was because the USA was scared shitless by the bullshit Domino Effect, and did everything in their power to destabilize the country... They were scared of a Communist single party state, so they opted for the Facist Pinochet authoritarian route. Yep. That makes so much god damn sense! wow! Good job USA! Thought we were fighting fascism just 30 years prior to this..?
Now, yes... Allende's programs were a bit extreme at the time, and were far from implemented well.. but sanctions imposed by the Nixon Administration are really what did it in. The entire economy of Chile was mostly brought to ruin by what the USA had done to combat the red scare, not by Allende's programs. The USA limited or even froze trade on anything from food during Chile's winter to spare parts to repair imported machinery... The USA also started subsidizing copper production in the American Southwest, and started selling it on the global at a rate that Chile couldn't compete with (Chile has a large copper mining industry) This also hurt other countries at the time, but it definitely hurt Chile...
Therefore, it's completely unfair to point the finger at Allende as for why Chile's economy had issues in the first few years of his presidency. I mean, the Congress in Chile was mostly conservative at the time anyway. It's not as if there wasnt an internal debate.
Additionally, the only reason the economy in Chile began to improve was because the USA basically subsidized it. It was artificial as fuck. The CIA installed economists who were educated in US schools to influence economic theory. They did it in Indonesia with Berkeley students, They did it in Iran, They did it in Japan, and they did it in Chile with the Chicago boys.
As soon as Pinochet was in power, there was push to install free-market economic theory.. this admittedly worked out okay for a while, but 10 years later, a massive recession hit, and it took until Pinochet was out of power and Democracy to be reinstalled for the economy to start really growing again... Additionally, Chile sorta had the same kinda mini-version of what the USA had during the 1950's, only with it's neighbors in South America. While other nations in Latin America were having civil wars, and dealing with some pretty butthole dictators themselves, Chile was bolstered hardcore and was able to outplay it's neighbors who couldn't develop as quickly. The USA basically created Chile as an reverse-domino effect nation. Make sure they stay strong, so others are influenced. It didn't really work so perfectly - especially during the recession, but Chile was able to white-picket fence it for a while.
So, you say that Scandinavia is moving to the right these days... but that doesn't explain for a second why their economies are so good, and their quality of life ratings are so ridiculously high under the last however many years of democratic socialism... You say they're failing with experiments in socialism, yet they have pretty much kicked ass with it for a while here. The only real comparative negative statistic you'll usually see in regards to scandinavian nations is a high suicide rate, but that has more to do with the sun-less winters and low population density than anything else (low population density correlates directly with suicide rate)
I kinda shake my head at your issue with multi-cultralism as well.. are they just supposed to stay blonde and blue eyed? not allow immigrants in? I'm not sure where you're from, but where I'm from, we celebrate our diversity to the utmost... we look at the melting pot of America as a good thing... If you're putting that down as a negative, then you need to chill on the xenophobia.
...Uhh what? Costa Rica and Chile absolutely provide universal healthcare... They both have private healthcare insurance systems too I'm sure, just like Canada, Mexico, the UK, and most other nations with single payer programs, but yeah.
You brought up Chile in a context that Sanders could be the next Allende... Which, not only is a terrible example because Chile in 1970 is by no means similar to the USA in 2015 as I already stated, but also because Allende was not only doomed by the efforts of the USA, but also killed. Who's going to do that to Bernie Sanders if he take the Oval Office? The USA is the alpha male of countries... he's not going to go the way of Allende or Mosaddegh or Nkrumah because there's nobody powerful enough...
Hypothetically speaking: The only way this country will go to shit under Sanders, is if those who don't like him domestically decide to fuck it up in order to spite him being elected. This is quite a bit different than some other country influencing a coup in Washington like what happened in Santiago...
to quote every libertarians favourite dude short of Ayn Rand...
We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness;
These three things - life, liberty, pursuit of happiness... these all come from the aforementioned John Locke.. who, stated...
"If God's purpose for me on Earth is my survival and that of my species, and the means to that survival are my life, health, liberty and property — then clearly I don't want anyone to violate my rights to these things"
I don't know about you, but I consider the "preservation of life" to be pretty equatable to healthcare. National defense is certainly a preservation of life, is it not? Yet nobody argues against a national defense... that's become culturally intrinsic as something we need, yea? We have enemies right? We need to protect against them? National Defense isn't exactly cheap, is it? It's not as if National Defense doesn't require a significant amount of our 'property' (money) to go to funding it right? So how does Healthcare detract from this? It's not as if healthcare doesn't save any fewer people than national defense - I and many others could argue that it saves far more - so how could you not say that this is a right?
Alternatively, you state that property is a human right - well, couldn't your own body be considered your property? If not your most important property? In today's day and age where "corporations are people, my friend" could you not say that you as a human body, are worth a damn? Nobody should be able to claim your property - that in this case would be slavery, right? That's part of the whole point of that argument is it not? I own my mind? I own my arms? I own my legs? They're not your feet... those are MY feet... MY elbows. MY dick.
At the end of the day, I consider my health, my family's health, my coworkers health, my communities, health, and really everyone's health to be far more important than the profits of insurance companies who leach off the health requirements of it's customers... In a socialized healthcare system, everyone is contributing to their individual healthcare... if you can afford to pay for a private doctor, be my guest. Congrats, now you don't have to pay into the system... (sounds a lot like if you can afford a bank account in the caymans, but I digress) For the rest of us, pooling our collective funds together to keep us healthy and safe is in the best interest of everyone.. A healthy populace means healthy students means smarter people means more innovation means jobs for workers means healthy workers means better production means better quality of life MEANS PROFIT!!!
Look, I get that you read a whole Wikipedia article on the politics of Chile and now consider yourself an expert. And you use the same tired rhetoric for the reasons that Chilean Marxism failed, why not extend that excuse to all Marxist-Socialist countries? And it would be asinine to assume that the US would not seek to undermine a government that was readily allying itself with the Soviets and Castro. Pinochet's coup was still brought about with the support of the Chilean middle class, and all people who couldn't even get enough food to eat. Lowering the "wealth inequality" only makes everyone equal in poverty (but yea I know Scandinavia and what not, ignoring the influence of Lutheran and Nordic tradition and culture).
Unlike you I have actually lived in Chile (6 years) and have seen both sides of the coin, I'm not citing from Wikipedia for a college essay.
Also nice attempt to skew the idea of what constitutes a right, at least as it was understood during the enlightenment.
Your mental acrobatics have failed to allow you to see the inherent contradiction of having a right to health care and the right to property.
As I repeat myself again, the rights to life, liberty and property are natural rights (negative rights). They only determine what others cannot do to you. As in, no one can take your life or cause you bodily harm (the right to life and health). That is where the justification for a national defense provided by government stems from, to prevent foreign powers from taking your right to life, liberty, and property. This provides the same justification for a police force.
The right to liberty provides justification for the procedures followed by the criminal justice system.
The right to property refers to physical property, your body would fall under your right to life and health, but again nice try there. Property refers to anything you own, including your physical belongings and your money.
By claiming that you have a "right" to health care, you are skewing what is a positive and negative right, they are very different. A positive "right" determines what other must do for you. One could argue that positive "rights" are not rights at all, they are entitlements. John Locke certainly never argued in favor of any positive rights, but again, nice attempt at a convenient, if inaccurate, interpretation.
By saying you have a "right" to health care, you are in essence saying that you are entitled to the property of another person to pay for that service. The right to life is not to be misinterpreted as the right to health care. No one can take your health from you, but no one is obligated to give it to you either.
That is why no one has the right to food, or shelter, or other personal needs.
I derive no benefit from whether or not you are able to meet your basic needs, so why should I give up my right to my own property to pay for your personal shortcomings?
This is a valid debate, but one that should never involve the misguided idea that any one person has the "right" to the property of another.
And lastly,
"A healthy populace means healthy students means smarter people means more innovation means jobs for workers means healthy workers means better production means better quality of life MEANS PROFIT!!!"
Nice way to end with some forum lingo to please your cheerleaders. There certainly won't be any "profit" (in the business sense) left. The jumps that have been taken here are laughable at best (but maybe that was the point?). Onward comrade!
CampeadorBy claiming that you have a "right" to health care, you are skewing what is a positive and negative right, they are very different. A positive "right" determines what other must do for you. One could argue that positive "rights" are not rights at all, they are entitlements. John Locke certainly never argued in favor of any positive rights, but again, nice attempt at a convenient, if inaccurate, interpretation.
By saying you have a "right" to health care, you are in essence saying that you are entitled to the property of another person to pay for that service. The right to life is not to be misinterpreted as the right to health care. No one can take your health from you, but no one is obligated to give it to you either.
That is why no one has the right to food, or shelter, or other personal needs.
Sweet Jesus dude, by that logic, public roads, our national defense, public education fucking everything the government does, would be a positive right because others in the country have to help pay taxes for it to exist.
We dont have a "right" for say outlined in the constitution, but here in America, we pay taxes together so we can get shit done for the betterment of our society as a whole.
Get your head out of your ass, and realize that there are people fucking hurting in America, and people who doing extremely well, in fact better than ever before. Put yourself in the shoes of a kid, growing up in a poor suburb of Detroit or Cleveland or any major metro area, and tell me the system isn't fucked right now.
All of us on this website in reality are extremely lucky individuals, just some of us seem to have forgotten that we are. Being rich aint bad, but not giving a fuck about those who are in need is.
ndyeSweet Jesus dude, by that logic, public roads, our national defense, public education fucking everything the government does, would be a positive right because others in the country have to help pay taxes for it to exist.
We dont have a "right" for say outlined in the constitution, but here in America, we pay taxes together so we can get shit done for the betterment of our society as a whole.
Get your head out of your ass, and realize that there are people fucking hurting in America, and people who doing extremely well, in fact better than ever before. Put yourself in the shoes of a kid, growing up in a poor suburb of Detroit or Cleveland or any major metro area, and tell me the system isn't fucked right now.
All of us on this website in reality are extremely lucky individuals, just some of us seem to have forgotten that we are. Being rich aint bad, but not giving a fuck about those who are in need is.
Government roads have historically been built for the transportation of armies (national defense) and to bolster the private sector (merchants and businesses). To build roads the government must tax wealth, and for wealth to be created there must be commerce.
Public education is an entitlement, not a right.
And please, spare me your bleeding heart bullshit. Odds are that you've done nothing in your life for any of these people you claim to care about, besides mark an X next to the "D" candidate on the ballot.
The system is fucked because it encourages procreation amongst those who cannot afford it, and provides people with all their basic needs who contribute nothing. Being on public assistance used to be something that made people ashamed, now it's something they strive for.
CampeadorPublic education is an entitlement, not a right.
Lol, you're a fucking idiot. Public education is an entitlement? Hate to break your little bubble but the definition of entitlement is having the right to do something. Anything you say or have said in this thread is now redundant for being a dumb cunt.
S.J.WLol, you're a fucking idiot. Public education is an entitlement? Hate to break your little bubble but the definition of entitlement is having the right to do something. Anything you say or have said in this thread is now redundant for being a dumb cunt.
Nah but bro there are like...positive rights...and like negative rights bro...like cause some guys like said we have the right to some stuff like 300 years ago like makes them negative bro...but like some of them are still positive bro...like healthcare bro...and education...like bro I should know, I live in Chile...and like my opinion is just right and yours is wrong bro...
June 16, 2015, 03:30 pm
Sanders overwhelms O'Malley
By Brent Budowsky, columnist, The Hill
5.1K23
During the last week, there were two interesting developments in the Democratic sweepstakes for president. There is no question that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is surging in polls and enthusiasm as the leading Democratic challenger to Hillary Clinton. In the latest surprise, Sanders is closing in on Clinton in New Hampshire and is within striking distance of closing Clinton's margin to single digits.
What is equally important, and less reported in the media, is that Sanders is totally suffocating the campaign of former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (D). In the Democratic race, there are two primaries. There is the primary for first place, with the Sanders surge garnering him huge media attention (including from yours truly). But the second primary is for second place, to determine which of the most liberal candidates will pose the ultimate challenge to Clinton, and in this second primary Sanders is winning a landslide over O'Malley and all other challengers.
O'Malley was a good governor of Maryland, and a good mayor of Baltimore, though as mayor he was not the fighting populist liberal he is campaigning as today — as opposed to Sanders, who was the progressive champion in every campaign he ran and every office he held.
O'Malley is feeling the heat from Sanders. If Sanders continues to surge and O'Malley continues to be a 2 percent to 3 percent candidate, watch for O'Malley's money to dry up with pressure for him to withdraw. While the media focuses on the first primary, watch closely the second primary to determine whether O'Malley remains viable as a candidate or whether the Sanders surge ultimately drives O'Malley from the race, leaving Sanders as the decisive winner of the battle for second place.
Budowsky was an aide to former Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D-Texas) and former Rep. Bill Alexander (D-Ark.), who was then chief deputy majority whip of the House. He holds an LL.M. degree in international financial law from the London School of Economics. Contact him at brentbbi@webtv.net.
CampeadorAnd please, spare me your bleeding heart bullshit. Odds are that you've done nothing in your life for any of these people you claim to care about, besides mark an X next to the "D" candidate on the ballot.
This is my second project as such, investing much of my own time and money and that of my friends and family generous enough to donate.
-Second consecutive poll shows Bernie Sanders closing in on Clinton in New Hampshire-
"Hillary Clinton may be facing much more of a fight than she expected in New Hampshire.
A new poll from Suffolk University is the second in two days to show Bernie Sanders surging among the state's primary electorate — it shows him just 11 points behind the frontrunner. Another poll from Morning Consult, released Monday, showed Sanders 12 points behind Clinton. "
"What's going on? Sanders does have the advantage of being from a neighboring state, but that didn't do much for him in polls a couple of months ago. It seems that instead, Democratic voters in the state are hearing what Bernie Sanders has to say — and liking it."
CampeadorLook, I get that you read a whole Wikipedia article on the politics of Chile and now consider yourself an expert. And you use the same tired rhetoric for the reasons that Chilean Marxism failed, why not extend that excuse to all Marxist-Socialist countries? And it would be asinine to assume that the US would not seek to undermine a government that was readily allying itself with the Soviets and Castro. Pinochet's coup was still brought about with the support of the Chilean middle class, and all people who couldn't even get enough food to eat. Lowering the "wealth inequality" only makes everyone equal in poverty (but yea I know Scandinavia and what not, ignoring the influence of Lutheran and Nordic tradition and culture).
Unlike you I have actually lived in Chile (6 years) and have seen both sides of the coin, I'm not citing from Wikipedia for a college essay.
Also nice attempt to skew the idea of what constitutes a right, at least as it was understood during the enlightenment.
Your mental acrobatics have failed to allow you to see the inherent contradiction of having a right to health care and the right to property.
As I repeat myself again, the rights to life, liberty and property are natural rights (negative rights). They only determine what others cannot do to you. As in, no one can take your life or cause you bodily harm (the right to life and health). That is where the justification for a national defense provided by government stems from, to prevent foreign powers from taking your right to life, liberty, and property. This provides the same justification for a police force.
The right to liberty provides justification for the procedures followed by the criminal justice system.
The right to property refers to physical property, your body would fall under your right to life and health, but again nice try there. Property refers to anything you own, including your physical belongings and your money.
By claiming that you have a "right" to health care, you are skewing what is a positive and negative right, they are very different. A positive "right" determines what other must do for you. One could argue that positive "rights" are not rights at all, they are entitlements. John Locke certainly never argued in favor of any positive rights, but again, nice attempt at a convenient, if inaccurate, interpretation.
By saying you have a "right" to health care, you are in essence saying that you are entitled to the property of another person to pay for that service. The right to life is not to be misinterpreted as the right to health care. No one can take your health from you, but no one is obligated to give it to you either.
That is why no one has the right to food, or shelter, or other personal needs.
I derive no benefit from whether or not you are able to meet your basic needs, so why should I give up my right to my own property to pay for your personal shortcomings?
This is a valid debate, but one that should never involve the misguided idea that any one person has the "right" to the property of another.
And lastly,
"A healthy populace means healthy students means smarter people means more innovation means jobs for workers means healthy workers means better production means better quality of life MEANS PROFIT!!!"
Nice way to end with some forum lingo to please your cheerleaders. There certainly won't be any "profit" (in the business sense) left. The jumps that have been taken here are laughable at best (but maybe that was the point?). Onward comrade!
Haha, in all honesty, I did look at wikipedia, but only to look up the 1970 election, which I was aware of, but not entirely sure about. I did understand that Allende was beaten very narrowly prior to that and kinda had to check facts real quick
...other than that, much of what I know about Chile at the time has to do with what I know from ESPN's 30:30 special on how Pinochet turned the National stadium into a fucking gulag, and my subsequent research that went into it at the time... I didn't dig very deep into what I saw on Wikipedia, moreover I remember what I had seen in documentaries and such - including those that highlighted the foreign undermining done by the CIA world-wide.
...and on that note, You think it's okay for the CIA to take out a Marxist simply for being Red, in order to facilitate a fascist dictator...? haha Again, I shake my head in full disagreement. If they had democratically elected someone who was Hitler-esque (Looking at you, Greece.. with your fucking Golden Dawn bullshit) and downright homicidal towards people, then of course that's fucked up (IE: If they had Elected Pinochet or something fucking idiotic)... but Marxism is FAR from homicidal or even Authoritarian in nature... So I definitely don't believe there's ANY justification for that wedge maneuver... You say Chilean Marxism failed.. it only even existed in power for a few years and had the USA breathing down it's neck harder than Cuba in the 50's... the Castro(s) regime has had it breathing down it's neck for.. well, it's now going on like 60 years now and Cuba is still doing just fucking fine (it's poor are at least treated better), and it's people are generally very healthy (they just admittedly don't have the most liberties due to Cuba being authoritarian - which has nothing to do with communism. Chile didn't have dick-ass for civil liberties either for the 17 years under Pinochet)
Your whole argument against universal healthcare is this bitchfest about how "wahhh I have to pay a liiittle tiny bit for others" when in reality, everyone's paying into the system in such a situation... Sure there might be a few people who are REALLY down on their luck with crap jobs and having come from a crap upbringing and have crap mental issues stemming from it that can't really contribute to the system yet, but being selfish and wanting to throw those who aren't 'on your level' so to speak, out to the wolves is some social darwinist xenophobic non-compassionate bullshit that formed the identity of the Nazi party... SO yeah, I just committed godwins and called you a friggin Nazi.. you know, because my cheerleaders will love it... and also because after everything you've said in here, it falls more or less in line with such backwards far-right wing theory.
What do you expect people to do? Just not have healthcare if they can't afford it? Die because they can't go to the doctor and get a dose of penicillin to deal with a fucked up cut on their leg they possibly sustained at work while probably building homes for more well off people? or should they then need to pay the outrageous fees to cover a basic ass drug that you can technically make in your backyard with an old orange, a petri dish, and enough knowhow? (AKA antibiotics are generally cheap to make yet cost a frigton because pharma industry...)
Cool. So I guess that construction company, loses a fucking hard ass working dude to a fucking 19th century style bacterial infuckingfection, because he was being paid fuckshit per-hour due to laughable minimum wage.. and couldn't afford basic assfucking healthcare that wouldn't have covered his fucking ass anyway because 'pre-fuckingexisting conditions'. Neat-fucking-O idea there. That's going to make it oh-so-fucking-easy to climb the ladder to achieve the american fucking dream... fucking...
Even if you don't want to call it a 'right'... it's in the best interest of everyone at hand to make it, in a sense, a "right"...
That's what I mean by Profits dude... At the end of the day, profits aren't generated by the top of the pyramid, they're generated by the workers on the bottom... If you don't have a good staff, a healthy staff, a happy staff who's ready to go to work in the morning and feel proud of what they do because their company takes care of them, or their country/community/whatever takes care of them and their family if shit hits the fan, then your company, country, community will not provide the best work, people will be stressed, people will be pissed, and you're going to fail to acquire good employees, and lose the company.. or if enough tightwads are making it shitty for the general pop, then someone's going to need to bring out the teargas cops when the people finally decide enough is enough and revolt like Toronto just won the Stanley cup at the same time that Rob Ford was elected King of Canada... This is what Marx cites when he speaks of the imminent revolution at hand... You can only fuck people over enough before they lose their shit. It's not bitching. It's not feeling entitled. It's not just trying to get a free obamaphone or whatever fox news bullshit that was... it's just trying to make ends meet so your kids can get a bag of oreos once in a while and get presents under the tree..
If capitalism is to work in any sense, socialism in certain arenas is in it's best interest. Whether you believe it or not... Otherwise, civil strife will happen over and over, and debt will rise and rise to cover peoples' needs in lieu of corporate profit margins.
But anyway.. I'm going to get all religious here and say Matthew 5:5... Try as you will, 1 percenter, but as democracy grows, as the poor gain more of a say, as globalism occurs, and as diplomacy allows us to better understand each other, everything's going to fall more and more left as it has continued for years... and generations after us will shock us with their progressive nature come the day we get our AARP cards... if they're even required at that time...
I'm not saying free ski trips and free HBO Go and Amazon Prime for the poor... I'm saying affordable enough healthcare so people don't die from dumbass shit - for the poor.
I'm not advocating communism right now... I'm advocating socialism where we need it, and capitalism where we want it... and warning that if we don't, communism will kick a big red boot through the door and it won't be pretty - because people right now are not ready for it... (marx never said the revolution had to be violent.. he just said it probably would be due to human nature)
CampeadorHahahaha say goodbye to full-time employees, between that and Obamacare that will be the death knell. How much paid vacation should part-time employees get? And why should a business pay for someone's leisure time?
Labor is simply an input for firms along with capital goods, firms create wealth by combining these inputs. If you make the labor input too costly, firms will shift towards capital goods.
I strongly suggest you shut the hell up until you've taken at least a full year of principles of economics. These are the basics, but they may be too much for you.
Sanders is a demagogue, and you're stupid enough to eat it up.
Not even close. See that's what's happening now, but mostly because of lax regulations lobbied for by big biz making it easy and profitable to do so. If we made it more difficult/expensive to outsource jobs overseas it wouldn't matter. Deregulating import/export tariffs through shitty trade deals AND stepping up requirements is a disaster though which is what's happening now.
Sanders has actually touched on the big picture of this many times. He has discussed the multi-faceted issue at hand at length and from someone who not only did all the Econ classes you could imagine, but is also co-owning and operating a domestic industrial outsourcing firm that handles the production, warehousing and logistics needs of a fortune 100 company. Believe me when I say I know how this shit works and Bernie gets it. The elasticity of domestic demand is tethered highly to that of import cost and we have been giving it away because it makes big money for importers and foreign companies that have heavily invested in the new political process- that needs to stop. It only serves people at the top and it's cannibalizing the ability for firms to compete in this country.
Our products and people are well worth it, but we are all of a sudden directly competing with China's 12 cent a day labor because of shitty trade deals. Also with "right to work" laws being pushed by republicans one really has to wonder why they want the USA to look like China- that isn't us and that's what raw, unregulated capitalism drives for. Please understand that.
Also if you cannot grasp, describe or understand the difference between Democratic Socialism and Communism then YOU ARE THE PROBLEM. You need to know what these things mean in order to debate them and it seems as though many have equated the former with the latter across the board and that is not how it works. Don't be that idiot, guys. You're better than that. We have been utilizing democratic socialism since 1776 so don't act like this is new- it is not. It is not communism even a little bit and when you act like it is you're simply proclaiming loud and proud that you have no clue what you're rambling on about.
People need to remember that while Sanders may be popular on websites like NS, Reddit, and other bastions of young millennials, ultimately, we have very little impact and it is unlikely Sanders will be elected. Let me try to explain why:
Despite all the rhetoric surrounding Sanders and how he is the underdog much like Obama was when he first ran in 2007, it is entirely different. When facing Clinton, during the 2008 primary season, Obama never faced greater than a 25% percentage differential. Even in 2007, his greatest difference in percentage points was roughly 28%. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html
So, while the New Hampshire poll may have shifted things slightly, there is a lot of things that would need to happen to see Sanders overtake Clinton. But, this is politics, and we have seen strangers things. But currently, it seems unlikely, at least to me, that Sanders has any chance to win the Democratic nomination.
.MASSHOLE.People need to remember that while Sanders may be popular on websites like NS, Reddit, and other bastions of young millennials, ultimately, we have very little impact and it is unlikely Sanders will be elected. Let me try to explain why:
Despite all the rhetoric surrounding Sanders and how he is the underdog much like Obama was when he first ran in 2007, it is entirely different. When facing Clinton, during the 2008 primary season, Obama never faced greater than a 25% percentage differential. Even in 2007, his greatest difference in percentage points was roughly 28%. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html
So, while the New Hampshire poll may have shifted things slightly, there is a lot of things that would need to happen to see Sanders overtake Clinton. But, this is politics, and we have seen strangers things. But currently, it seems unlikely, at least to me, that Sanders has any chance to win the Democratic nomination.
If you can get Sanders on a stage with Hillary for a debate, I think we all might be suprised by the shift we see.
ndyeIf you can get Sanders on a stage with Hillary for a debate, I think we all might be suprised by the shift we see.
It doesn't matter. I can't wait to watch him dismantle Hillary but the media will say he has no shot and he's a quack. And all of the Americans will go "oh that guy on the TV said I should vote for Hillary. I'll just do that."
The media controls the elections. As long as pundits on the major news networks say he has no shot, he has no shot. Maybe that shift will occur but I doubt it.
ndyeIf you can get Sanders on a stage with Hillary for a debate, I think we all might be suprised by the shift we see.
This this this! There are a lot of undecided people out there and I can tell even the worst type of person is wondering why they are talking about bush and clinton again.
Didn't read anything else in this thread but I do know that Bernie Sanders is all talk and even if he does get elected, he'd get nothing done because of the senate and house.
DlCKThis this this! There are a lot of undecided people out there and I can tell even the worst type of person is wondering why they are talking about bush and clinton again.
Sure, you will sway those who watch the debates. But how many people watch them? The second presidential debate between McCain and Obama only had 63 million viewers according to Nielsen which is one of the highest in the past 30 years. However, in comparison, the 2008 democratic debates only averaged 4.9 million viewers, which is roughly 14 times less than the presidential.
You will need some serious post-coverage of the democratic debates, but unfortunately, with todays media format, it will most likely only be shown as snip-its and blurbs, giving little to no in-depth coverage that has the ability to sway viewers.
So to rely on the democratic debates and pro-Clinton media is a very difficult task.
.MASSHOLE.Sure, you will sway those who watch the debates. But how many people watch them? The second presidential debate between McCain and Obama only had 63 million viewers according to Nielsen which is one of the highest in the past 30 years. However, in comparison, the 2008 democratic debates only averaged 4.9 million viewers, which is roughly 14 times less than the presidential.
You will need some serious post-coverage of the democratic debates, but unfortunately, with todays media format, it will most likely only be shown as snip-its and blurbs, giving little to no in-depth coverage that has the ability to sway viewers.
So to rely on the democratic debates and pro-Clinton media is a very difficult task.
Good point. The percentage of people who dont vote in states like Alabama is staggering.
Yeah... the Republican debates are going to get a lot more coverage due to the sheer amount of candidates (and crazy dipshit candidates at that). The debates for the dems are going to be Hillary vs like 4 or 5 people who have almost no name recognition amongst mainstream liberals...
