A great advert for Socialism

[Tommy Tainant]

Vaguely.

You may want to bone up on it and then apply it to the notion that governments actually do anything good for people in terms of freedom vs shadows.

Its not a freedom issue, its an economic issue. Perhaps you can explain how having a fully funded pension diminishes your freedom ?

It is under the control of the government, not the people. How does it NOT reduce the freedom of the people?

It is an illusion to believe that governments are benign.

Freedom to be poor and hungry ? You are crazy ?
There is a clear benefit to the people here. What benefit is there in giving all of this wealth away to corporations ?

You're nuts. Freedom to be an individual. If you go hungry, that is on you. No one who participates in their life goes hungry in this world. You, people, hate corporations, but here you are advocating for a government, with the full power to kill you, to become a corporation.

You need to have your head examined.

Why do you feel so threatened by this ?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

The GOP continues to completely miss the sociological aspects of libertarianism and its attending (and inevitable) increasing wealth inequality.

There are enough people who simply won't put up with this for much longer, they vote, and that can lead to knee-jerk reactions.

There has always been wealth inequality since the dawn of time. What there hasnt been is an educated workforce who see their standard of living stalling.
People generally just want a nice house, a job that pays the bills and a future for their kids. Its not too much to ask for really.

 

[9thIDdoc]

No it's a great advert for putting your native country first.

 

[Markle]

Socialists in Europe depend on the US to defend them. They have no army to speak of.

That is another reason why the US cannot be like them. They are too busy buying weapons to defend the world from itself.

No, the major reasons are that one, we are extremely proud of our independence and personal responsibility. Except for Progressives of course. Another point is that the vast majority of Americans would never tolerate the income and other taxes Europe labors under.

Imagine what would happen to our economy if you went to buy a modest new car for $30,000 and on top of that, you had to pay a $6,000. VAT.

 

[Markle]

There has always been wealth inequality since the dawn of time. What there hasnt been is an educated workforce who see their standard of living stalling.
People generally just want a nice house, a job that pays the bills and a future for their kids. Its not too much to ask for really.

So you're satisfied with a mediocre life and standard of living so that's great for you. Not everyone is happy with others making decisions for them. Anyone can easily achieve what you claim they want.

MANY are not, we take personal responsibility seriously and work for success.

 

[Markle]

The ignorance of you trumpbots never ceases to amaze me. You would prefer to see national assets stripped for private gain and live with under funded schools,hospitals and pensions.

Our schools are NOT underfunded if anything we overspend. Our hospitals are the finest in the world and the pensions which are underfunded are those of the government. See California, Social Security, see Medicare.

 

[Markle]

You dont seem to understand how investment works. If Norway invests in any company then they own that part of it. It isnt yours it is theirs.

They also invest all over the world and not just the US.

Quite how you view something like Apple as "OURS" also puzzles me. Apple is not yours. It belongs to its shareholders which includes the Norwegian Sovereign Fund and in fact Tommy Tainant.

IF we ran our government as does Norway, soon Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland would soon be part of the new Soviet Union along with many other countries. The same with China and quite likely we would have to turn over the keys to the White House as well.

How would it not?

 

[Markle]

That is not true of the federal districts, why should it be true of federal policy?

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever--In the federal districts.

The Federal District now has a name: Washington DC. Congress maintains total legislative control over the city. That does not mean such power extends beyond the city.

Why do we have federal wars on crime, drugs and terror?

Providing for the general welfare spending, is in our Constitution.

 

[Markle]

It seems quite appropriate in Norway where the countries assets are being used to provide a better life for ALL Norwegians.

With a quick calculation 330,000,000 / 5,600.000 means that if we had SIXTY-THREE times the resources of Norway we could do the same thing.

 

[Markle]

Why does the right wing support warfare spending that affects Individuals but not welfare spending that helps Individuals?

Real Conservatives do not support ANY welfare spending... Corporate, Personal, International, Disaster, at al...

then why do they support warfare spending?

Try reading the Constitution of the United States of America.

 

[Markle]

then why do they support warfare spending?

National Defense IS a Constitutional expenditure. It does need to be reigned in to a certain degree as much of it goes to defend places other thsn the US, but ddfense spend g I. General is at least Constitutional.

Yes, the general welfare is Constitutional the general warfare is not. Only the right wing, never gets it.

Please read the U.S. Constitution. Your ignorance of the document is embarrassing.

 

[emilynghiem]

Norway's sovereign wealth fund is now worth $1,000,000,000,000

the Norwegians took their oil wealth and invested it in their people.

And now their pensions are fully funded.

Imagine that. A country that works for all its people and not just the few.

Dear Tommy Tainant
What size is Norway? And what are the demographics
and ethnic diversity of their population?

Of all the states in the US, which would compare most closely to Norway?

If we can figure out what is the largest size population that can be
governed effectively through central govt WITHOUT losing accountability
to corruption, perhaps we could adopt that model here in the US.

But given the diversity of the US and of the individual states within the US
it will likely take breaking this down by state, county or even district.

Then perhaps you are right, on a local enough level that can be managed,
people could CHOOSE to invest in programs that affect their district
and population directly so there is accountability for spending and/or waste.

To do that in the US would probably take localized govt to catch and replicate
that same level of direct representation and responsibility given our cultures.

What state or region would you compare Norway to?

 

[Markle]

By buying into the capitalism they refuse to simply allow Norwegians to have themselves. Brilliant strategy.

How are Norwegians restricted from engaging with capitalism ?
Do you know anything about anything ?

Um, they live in a socialist society? That's like asking how people in Hog Wallow, West Virginia are restricted from eating Mexican food. BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ANY.

Thanks for that.

I guess that is why there isnt a Norwegian Stock Exchange.
https://www.oslobors.no/ob_eng/

Or any companies traded on that exchange.
List of companies listed on the Oslo Stock Exchange - Wikipedia

You are as dumb as fuck.

At what point did capitalism become defined as "having a stock exchange"?

And didn't you start all this by singing the praises of Norway and its socialism? But now you're frantically trying to tell us that it's capitalist, which you consider a bad thing?

I guess you'd be the resident expert on "dumb as fuck". I bow to your superior knowledge and expertise in that area.

You continue to embarrass yourself.

I think its because you do not understand that there is a difference between socialism and communism. And of course you are really stupid.

Perhaps you could school me by pointing out a capitalist country that doesnt have a stock exchange ?

As you know, in Marxist theory, Socialism a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.

Surely you are familiar with the Cloward-Piven Strategy.

I'm sure you are also aware that both Cloward and Piven were present for the signing of the Motor Voter Law by former President Clinton.

 

[danielpalos]

That is not true of the federal districts, why should it be true of federal policy?

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever--In the federal districts.

The Federal District now has a name: Washington DC. Congress maintains total legislative control over the city. That does not mean such power extends beyond the city.

Why do we have federal wars on crime, drugs and terror?

Providing for the general welfare spending, is in our Constitution.

funny. nothing but fallacy from the right wing, instead of any better arguments at lower cost.

 

[danielpalos]

Why does the right wing support warfare spending that affects Individuals but not welfare spending that helps Individuals?

Real Conservatives do not support ANY welfare spending... Corporate, Personal, International, Disaster, at al...

then why do they support warfare spending?

Try reading the Constitution of the United States of America.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.

Providing for the general warfare is not in our federal Constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

then why do they support warfare spending?

National Defense IS a Constitutional expenditure. It does need to be reigned in to a certain degree as much of it goes to defend places other thsn the US, but ddfense spend g I. General is at least Constitutional.

Yes, the general welfare is Constitutional the general warfare is not. Only the right wing, never gets it.

Please read the U.S. Constitution. Your ignorance of the document is embarrassing.

I have. I don't resort to fallacy, like the right wing. I am not infidel, protestant, or renegade to the federal doctrine, unlike the right wing.

There is no general warfare clause. There is a general welfare clause.

Both affect, Individuals.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Norway's sovereign wealth fund is now worth $1,000,000,000,000

the Norwegians took their oil wealth and invested it in their people.

And now their pensions are fully funded.

Imagine that. A country that works for all its people and not just the few.

Dear Tommy Tainant
What size is Norway? And what are the demographics
and ethnic diversity of their population?

Of all the states in the US, which would compare most closely to Norway?

If we can figure out what is the largest size population that can be
governed effectively through central govt WITHOUT losing accountability
to corruption, perhaps we could adopt that model here in the US.

But given the diversity of the US and of the individual states within the US
it will likely take breaking this down by state, county or even district.

Then perhaps you are right, on a local enough level that can be managed,
people could CHOOSE to invest in programs that affect their district
and population directly so there is accountability for spending and/or waste.

To do that in the US would probably take localized govt to catch and replicate
that same level of direct representation and responsibility given our cultures.

What state or region would you compare Norway to?

I wouldnt like to guess Emily.

What happened is that North Sea oil was discovered in Norwegian waters. It was a bonus to the state,any revenues from it were not included in their budgeting.

So they decided to invest the revenue for the good of all Norwegians rather than fritter it away on tax breaks and wars and so on.

The principal is the thing and could be applied in any state that has a similar windfall.

In the UK oil revenue, from the same field, was used to fund wars and tax cuts for millionaires. Our pensions are not funded at all. We rely on the next generation paying in to fund them.

The Norwegian way is best.

 

[emilynghiem]

then why do they support warfare spending?

National Defense IS a Constitutional expenditure. It does need to be reigned in to a certain degree as much of it goes to defend places other thsn the US, but ddfense spend g I. General is at least Constitutional.

Yes, the general welfare is Constitutional the general warfare is not. Only the right wing, never gets it.

Please read the U.S. Constitution. Your ignorance of the document is embarrassing.

I have. I don't resort to fallacy, like the right wing. I am not infidel, protestant, or renegade to the federal doctrine, unlike the right wing.

There is no general warfare clause. There is a general welfare clause.

Both affect, Individuals.

Dear danielpalos

1. the general welfare does not specify health care
just like right to life does not specify unborn persons
These require consent of the governed public if you are going to clarify and add things to what is stated in writing, because these other applications are not stated specifically in writing

Have you ever worked under a contract?
I know someone buying a house right now, and just to change a single thing, like changing the wording that the owner might leave all or some of the fixtures to DEFINITELY agreeing to leave certain curtains requires them to AGREE to change the contract in writing. They can't just take the existing wording and "say it means this other thing" if it wasn't expressly and specifically stated. And that's just a contract between two people.

When you are talking about 50 states and a nation of over 300 million, you can't just arbitrarily change wording to conveniently mean what YOU believe or want it to. It has to be done by consensus representing the people of the nation affected.

This is not a dictatorship, of the one or the few like you.
There are RULES for amending the Constitution.

There are there to PROTECT people like you and me from anyone coming along, including prolifers you may not agree with, suddenly deciding that the laws mean something that you and I did NOT agree they mean.

So the same laws/process that protect us from beliefs we don't share, protect other people as well who don't share our beliefs.

2. the body of the Constitution defines the powers of the federal govt in matters of the military and names the President in charge as commander in chief.

Yes you can call this defense instead of warfare.
But it basically states the power of Congress to declare war.

So that is in the Constitution.

But health care is not specified and requires an Amendment,
similar to how the right to bear arms for people was specified by Amendment.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Norway's sovereign wealth fund is now worth $1,000,000,000,000

the Norwegians took their oil wealth and invested it in their people.

And now their pensions are fully funded.

Imagine that. A country that works for all its people and not just the few.

Wait a minute. So they invested in American companies? Through stocks? That's the genius of Norway?

Its largest holdings are in Apple (AAPL), Nestle (NSRGF), Royal Dutch Shell (RDSA), Novartis(NVS), Microsoft (MSFT) and Alphabet (GOOGL), the owner of Google.

Well shit, we should have thought of that.

American resources are not working for the people, they are working for the few.
I suspect that the US has more resources than Norway can dream of. And they will all enrich the few.

I dunno, I have relatively cheap gas and natural gas for heat. Lots of fresh water, etc. What else should I expect? Free trees?

 

[danielpalos]

then why do they support warfare spending?

National Defense IS a Constitutional expenditure. It does need to be reigned in to a certain degree as much of it goes to defend places other thsn the US, but ddfense spend g I. General is at least Constitutional.

Yes, the general welfare is Constitutional the general warfare is not. Only the right wing, never gets it.

Please read the U.S. Constitution. Your ignorance of the document is embarrassing.

I have. I don't resort to fallacy, like the right wing. I am not infidel, protestant, or renegade to the federal doctrine, unlike the right wing.

There is no general warfare clause. There is a general welfare clause.

Both affect, Individuals.

Dear danielpalos

1. the general welfare does not specify health care

Healthcare reform does promote the general welfare; providing for the general welfare is a Power delegated to Congress, for that Purpose.