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

[oldernwiser]

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

Bernie Sanders I can beat Hillary Clinton - CBS News

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

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

Why are average joe republicans okay with that?

How nice of you to call the American populace stupid.

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

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

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

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

Not willing to take your own part of the blame?
IMO, our schools are failing because of our insistence that every district be independent and NOT handled like a socialist government collective.

 

[oldernwiser]

... fuck the rich...

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

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

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

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

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

It doesn't get stuffed into mattresses, it gets stuffed into trust funds. Or, it gets stuffed into offshore accounts where it does absolutely no one any good. There comes a point where some folks just can't spend the money they earn fast enough, so it's accumulated in interest bearing accounts which have no impact on the country's productivity but is relatively safe from market fluctuations.

You are ignorant.

Trust funds, and off shore accounts... but are utilized by the economy. If I shove money into an off shore account.... what do you think the bank does with it?

The mythology that there's a big vault with millions of gold coins you can swim through like Scrooge McDuck on on a Disney cartoon, is idiotic.

Banks invest the money into the economy, and so do trust funds. I assume you have never dealt with a trust fund. You don't just park raw cash in warehouse somewhere, and that's the "trust fund".

You buy rentals, or land, or investments like bonds or stocks in a company. All of which benefit the economy. Banks make loans, or investments. All of which benefit the economy.

There is no magic money sitting somewhere doing nothing, unless it really is in a jar on your counter top, or stuffed in the mattress. But rich people don't do that. They invest. That's why they are rich.

Simple response: Yes they do make investments. But they aren't beholden to making those investments in the US, which certainly strengthens AN economy, but maybe not so much ours. As far as the asset owners are concerned, they're getting a nice return which may or may not be spent here, but the assets themselves aren't doing anyone else in this country (which is the real point) any real good.

 

[oldernwiser]

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

Bernie Sanders I can beat Hillary Clinton - CBS News

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

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

Why are average joe republicans okay with that?

How nice of you to call the American populace stupid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But, did you actually compare curriculum to curriculum?
Did you ask the private school what happens to students who can't keep up educationally or emotionally and compare that to the public system? Could THAT have been the reason for the better outcomes?
Does the private school even accept kids with special needs, or provide other services such as social workers and counselors which public schools are required to do? Do you think that might have something to do with the higher per student cost?

If you're going to compare, you have to compare EVERYTHING.

 

[oldernwiser]

... fuck the rich...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think I already stipulated to part of that.

 

[oldernwiser]

... fuck the rich...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SMH... are you a millionaire or simply someone hopes to be one someday?

 

[oldernwiser]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's what I'd suggest: click on this link, scroll down to the tables and find on there where it says that the US allows 3 million immigrants a year. Hint: you won't find it. But you're more than welcome to come back and revise your numbers with facts.

 

[bripat9643]

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

Bernie Sanders I can beat Hillary Clinton - CBS News

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

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

Why are average joe republicans okay with that?

How nice of you to call the American populace stupid.

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

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

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

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

Not willing to take your own part of the blame?
IMO, our schools are failing because of our insistence that every district be independent and NOT handled like a socialist government collective.

Every public school is a socialist government collective. That's precisely what's wrong with them.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Folks,

This thread is about Bernie Sanders....not our public school system.

While I agree that some discussion of what it means to be a democratic socialist is necessary...

Billy000 has succeeded in derailing his own thread.

Of course, I am not sure how much of a thread or discussion you can have (on any topic) if you basically believe the American electorate to be generally ignorant or stupid.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Scandinavian governments work because everyone there wants to have nice things and for their neighbors to also have nice things. America is too dog-eat-dog for that anytime soon, for that the boomers must finally die out.

The problem is that average joe republicans are so brainwashed. Their simple minds make them pawns to the party. It's both terrible and astounding.

All a republican politician has to do is talk about how much he loves freedom; vague generalizations about upholding the constitution; lowering taxes (always for the wealthy btw), and he recruits millions of pawns. It's shocking it is that easy.

Can you prove this assertion ?

I mean with facts and figures...not your standard...."self evident" argument.

And while my experience would suggest your are somewhat correct....I would also say it is no different for those on the left.

 

[jasonnfree]

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

Bernie Sanders I can beat Hillary Clinton - CBS News

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

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

Why are average joe republicans okay with that?

How nice of you to call the American populace stupid.

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

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

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

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

Not willing to take your own part of the blame?
IMO, our schools are failing because of our insistence that every district be independent and NOT handled like a socialist government collective.

Every public school is a socialist government collective. That's precisely what's wrong with them.

The pupils of the socialist collective schools won WW2 and put a man on the moon for example. They can't be all that bad.

 

[bripat9643]

How nice of you to call the American populace stupid.

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

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

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

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

Not willing to take your own part of the blame?
IMO, our schools are failing because of our insistence that every district be independent and NOT handled like a socialist government collective.

Every public school is a socialist government collective. That's precisely what's wrong with them.

The pupils of the socialist collective schools won WW2 and put a man on the moon for example. They can't be all that bad.

Conservative American engineers and businessmen won WW II and put a man on the moon. However, WW II was just one fascist country fighting another fascist country.

 

[jasonnfree]

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

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

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

Not willing to take your own part of the blame?
IMO, our schools are failing because of our insistence that every district be independent and NOT handled like a socialist government collective.

Every public school is a socialist government collective. That's precisely what's wrong with them.

The pupils of the socialist collective schools won WW2 and put a man on the moon for example. They can't be all that bad.

Conservative American engineers and businessmen won WW II and put a man on the moon. However, WW II was just one fascist country fighting another fascist country.

How do you know the engineers were conservatives? These businessmens' asses were saved by FDR and his socialist policies. And FDR was in charge during WW2.

 

[bripat9643]

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

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

Not willing to take your own part of the blame?
IMO, our schools are failing because of our insistence that every district be independent and NOT handled like a socialist government collective.

Every public school is a socialist government collective. That's precisely what's wrong with them.

The pupils of the socialist collective schools won WW2 and put a man on the moon for example. They can't be all that bad.

Conservative American engineers and businessmen won WW II and put a man on the moon. However, WW II was just one fascist country fighting another fascist country.

How do you know the engineers were conservatives? These businessmens' asses were saved by FDR and his socialist policies. And FDR was in charge during WW2.

Turds like you keep claiming businessmen are all conservatives, don't you? American business saved FDR's ass, not the other way around.

 

[Dragonlady]

Conservatives: rewriting history to serve their agenda.

 

[jasonnfree]

After Sputnik, Our government started a new policy about teaching science and engineering in our schools. Men directly from the US government herded us into auditoriums, teaching about the implications of the soviet success in their space program, said we have to get with the program, especially with math and science. I was in 7th grade then and remember this. It was a government effort all the way, same as world war 2.

 

[jasonnfree]

Not willing to take your own part of the blame?
IMO, our schools are failing because of our insistence that every district be independent and NOT handled like a socialist government collective.

Every public school is a socialist government collective. That's precisely what's wrong with them.

The pupils of the socialist collective schools won WW2 and put a man on the moon for example. They can't be all that bad.

Conservative American engineers and businessmen won WW II and put a man on the moon. However, WW II was just one fascist country fighting another fascist country.

How do you know the engineers were conservatives? These businessmens' asses were saved by FDR and his socialist policies. And FDR was in charge during WW2.

Turds like you keep claiming businessmen are all conservatives, don't you? American business saved FDR's ass, not the other way around.

Do some reading about the situation the country was in when FDR won the election. Why are you starting with the vulgarity?

 

[2aguy]

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

Bernie Sanders I can beat Hillary Clinton - CBS News

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

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

Why are average joe republicans okay with that?

Two guys essentially comprise an entire third party.

And unions and trial lawyers make up the bigger 4th party as they donate to democrats.....


Top Organization Contributors OpenSecrets

 

[Andylusion]

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

Bernie Sanders I can beat Hillary Clinton - CBS News

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

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

Why are average joe republicans okay with that?

How nice of you to call the American populace stupid.

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

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

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

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

Not willing to take your own part of the blame?
IMO, our schools are failing because of our insistence that every district be independent and NOT handled like a socialist government collective.

There is no government collective system that performs better than private alternatives.

Why would I take the blame for a system I never supported, or had any hand in creating?

If we moved over to a complete free-market system.... and it didn't work... Then I would have to accept blame.

 

[Andylusion]

Conservatives: rewriting history to serve their agenda.

Same to you.

 

[Andylusion]

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

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

Not willing to take your own part of the blame?
IMO, our schools are failing because of our insistence that every district be independent and NOT handled like a socialist government collective.

Every public school is a socialist government collective. That's precisely what's wrong with them.

The pupils of the socialist collective schools won WW2 and put a man on the moon for example. They can't be all that bad.

Conservative American engineers and businessmen won WW II and put a man on the moon. However, WW II was just one fascist country fighting another fascist country.

How do you know the engineers were conservatives? These businessmens' asses were saved by FDR and his socialist policies. And FDR was in charge during WW2.

Actually, I am convinced that Russia won world war 2. We served only as a distraction. Not to say the western front didn't fight and die just as valiantly, but if Russia had not been slaughtering the Nazis on the eastern front, we would have been killed on the west for sure.

That said, the business man were not, by any rational position... "saved" by FDR. Not a chance. That's idiotic at best, and down right lying at worst.