Discrimination Of Economic Minorities Who Support Wealth Redistribution Or Welfare?

What comparison? Norway has oil exports so we cannot compare its domestic institutions to those of the U.S?

 

So now you set the rules and tell people what their goals are? All the while allegedly promoting freedom from dictatorship.

I do for one, as do many others. Try the various indexes which state economic freedom per country. Then again, I suppose you would know better than those who study and survey countries economic freedom.

Im on alcohol, I dont know about the others.

Oh well if one person cannot drink responsibly lets outlaw it for everyone. It is clearly failed.

Incorrect. Sounds more like the central planners idea from the communist manifesto. While a central government is not everyone at the same time, the mechanism of democracy ensures it is who the people want it to be. While no system will make everyone happy, most agree on democracy and the majority rules conception, without it we allow power to a much smaller group. I hardly see why this fails. It has yet to fail in seceral countries. The scandinavian ones for example. Parrotting fox news contributors will not suffice here old sport. It is primacy to promote the idea that certain things fail for certain people. Surely you understand this.

Oh well why didnt you just say so.

Yes, are you denying there are ''states'' (still trying to figure out your unnecessary use of quotation) that have less population than 5 million?

 

'Welfare' and 'liberals' go hand in hand, and thus the two should be hated by every American that loves our country and has the desire to be successful and independent of government shackles.

 

Well, since they have such a miniscule population in comparison, and because they have such a high level of oil exports, it does skew the impact of any economic system and subsequent conclusions, does it not?

If you say it doesn't, could we also take an island of 10 people that sits on a gold mine and draw comparisons from that as well?

You are talking about a nation under 5 million people that lacks any substantive urban center whatsoever, and trying to draw comparisons to a diverse nation of 330 million people. This is an apples and oranges situation if one ever existed.

 

Yes we most certainly can make comparisons from various facets of their societal structure. As we can from the surrounding successful and more socialised nations who are also enjoying prosperous times and the growth rates have been steady as I have depicted in A previous link. I have also adressed the fact that states in the U.S, aside from federal statutes are allowed to govern themselves according to state legislators, considering how we can break the nation down like this the population disconect is substantially attenuated. The league of the Iroquis had a small scale civilization, yet that did not stop the founders from examining their form of democracy to build upon and create their version of a land of the free. Countires that do not have a minimum wage because such regulations would lower some of their wages interests me. Countries which have things like year long paid maternity leaves while many people work less than 36 hours per week and still maintain a high standard of living interest me. Countries that love the function of democracy so much that they incorporate it to the workplace interest me. If these and other benefits I linked to earlier do not interest you thats fine.

Must have grown a little overnight.

 

Can we take an anarchist island of 10 people that sits on a vast gold mine and draw any useful economic comparison from that? If not....why can't we?

 

Welfare may exist with both capitalism and socialism, however it is most certainly a requirement with capitalism.

Also, how does fixing a cat make them a liberal? I know you probably intend some sort of humor here but do you not believe in any sort of birth control? Also, do you now hate your cat because he's not running around pissing on your carpet to mark territory ect.?

 

The vast majority of U.S states have a smaller population than Norway. The comparisons are not simply limited to Norway, their success simply intrigues me. The surrounding socialised nations are also doing quite well. They have larger populations but again, most U.S states have smaller populations than Norway. When we break the nation down to various state legislators it is much easier to make comparisons. Might this be an acceptable compromise?

 

That would be a compromise that improves the comparison for certain if you want to examine a per capita gdp comparison perhaps, by the same token, the differences between comparing an individual nation to a state that is governed in a dual federal/state relationship still creates quite a conflict. More than likely, any information that you would be able to pull up on a per capita gdp by state would not include any form of gdp resulting from natural resources, amongst a host of other unforeseen differences that would take a great deal of time to parse.

The typical knock on a socialist arrangement would be that there is a reduction in incentive to produce that results. When that production is propped up by an inordinate volume of natural resources like oil/gas etc, it tends to dramatically minimize the effects of any economic disincentive to produce that may result from a socialized economy.

 

GDP comparisons dont really interest me save for the steady growth rate they achieve. I will not discount that this is partially achieved by oil exports which provided for a great deal of job creation back in the 70's and still today. I disagree with the incentive part, you can still incentivize people with a more leveled playing field. Also, (and definately not exclusively because of this) have you viewed my thread ''examining incentives'' in the political opinions and beliefs board?

 

I think I understand, the U.S is, and has been a dictatorship as long as executive orders have been around.


Sorry about the belated reply, I missed your post.

 

My opinion: you're a f*cking idiot.

 

I suppose you have evidence to back this outlandish claim?

 

Pretty much, FDR used EO's to send Japanese-Americans in concentration camps and confiscate their property. The current administration has used it to detain indefinitely and/or assassinate US citizens. And there are many in between... by both parties.

 

So youre saying that in order for us to return to the land of the free as the founders intended we must do away with executive orders?

 

"I think that we take money from rich people and give it to poor black people" is a summary of the OP. Therefore, he is a f*cking idiot.

 

I'm all for more poor people and stupid people. That way I move up higher on the economic food chain.

 

Incorrect.

 

I dont suppose you have evidence to back these outlandish claims?

 

Geaorge Washington issued Presidential Proclamations, equate to EO's. Its been a dictatorship since its inception then?

 

I'm shocked that your post is even serious.......so in other words if you aren't rich, you are discriminated against? Give me a break!

 

This is a flawed statement, because Libertarians are against too many tax dollars in the FIRST place. in other words (no disrespect) but a total BS.

1. Absolutely agree. and most idiots on the right as well as some Libertarians need to realise that most welfare is going to the rich, it's just that most people have been brainwashed by clever propaganda. most rich become rich because of welfare, details are explained in my web site. and as far as welfare for the poor who simply can not find jobs, there should be no hate for that - many people confuse the lazy fat pigs who have 5-10+ kids with simple people who are just down on their luck because of all the restrictions placed by government to better serve welfare to the rich.
2. Sometimes yes, and other times it is just being stolen to make some people rich or to serve special interests. in other words as I just explained: welfare for the rich.
3. Completely dissagree. see #2. if my aquarium is leaking, adding more and more water may not be the best solution.

 

While I did not submit the OP I would like to know how you derived such a conclusion. Might you elaborate?

 

He posted that, "many people" take offense when the discussion is about wealth distribution. Then went on to post that the "many" claim libertarian and conservative political affiliation. Examing the pages of this one thread elucidates the statement perfectly.

 

Despite Norways success, it is actually the least successful of its neighboring scandinavian nations.