You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Vancouver Off-Topic / Current EventsThe off-topic forum for Vancouver, funnies, non-auto centered discussions, WORK SAFE. While the rules are more relaxed here, there are still rules. Please refer to sticky thread in this forum.
You can't compare to Nordic countries. Norway for example has a huge Sovereign fund and their education system is based af.
And on an apple to apple comparison, among all the left and right US president nominees... this is as far left as they have ever been.
Ok, that leaves Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Iceland. Not to mention other socialist-Venezuela-in-waiting-Eurotrash countries like the Netherlands, Germany, France, Switzerland which are all waaay more left leaning than the US Democrats.
BTW the US Democratic party is to the right of the Conservative Party of Canada.
so what you're saying is democratic socialism can be successful and several countries have pulled it off without becoming venezuela.
For socialism to work, you need to have money and very high level of education/common value.
Unfortunately, US is deep in debt, and the level of education or the right common value is nowhere to be found.
Take a look at what's happening in the US. You have people who are basically plaguing the benefit system and the benefit system is not sustainable.
Norway sovereign fund is 1.7trillion dollar (and growing) for a population of 5.x million of people. Roughly 300k USD per person.
In comparison, US is negative 102k USD.
I'm never against benefits. There is always a place for benefit in our society to those in need. The question is how do you fund it and make sure that it actually make an impact in our society?
The idea of Norway Sovereign fund was to use the wealth generated by their resources to fund their future. Be it their benefit program or other social needs.
In US, without a meaningful way to generate income, it's nothing more than stealing from their future generations to give to the current generation.
People who have no children don't give a fuck. They only care about themselves and how they are going to live decent the rest of their live.
The Dems plan to tax their way out for these benefits. They target the "large corporations and billionaires". But these people would eventually run out. They have the resources to make way (if there's no way) to cheat the system.
Thus, such plan is not sustainable. If they said they'd tax all natural resources, be it food, fossil oil or whatever, they might have something... because it's something that takes time to generate and would continue to generate in the foreseeable future.
The moment they mentioned that they are going to tax the wealthy and large corporations... I can bet my entire networth that this is not sustainable. Because these people are not stupid. It's actually corporation's obligation to find a way to get ahead of it. So, they will invest millions if not billions to cheat. It make financial sense... if by investing a billion dollar can save them 10 billions... why not?
And if you look at similar proposals of Trump on how he plans to finance whatever benefit system, he's actually proposing a single non-discriminative tariff for everything coming into the US, while getting rid of the income taxes.
It's actually similar to what I proposed before... a single non-discriminative low tax on everyone, no structure and money-moving around accounting BS... just a single 10% tax. Because that's what the tariff is going to do. A tax on everyone. But a person making 150k gets to keep almost the entire 150k vs. 100k that they have now.
It's so weird to hear through the DNC. All the speeches were basically "Organge man bad, can't let him back".
When Dems have held the office 12 out of the last 16yrs. And somehow all the problems in America are the result of Trump.
Where the fuck have you guys been and what the fuck did you do all these time? And somehow they want people to believe that giving them another 4yrs is going to change anything.
OMG hilarious, criticizing Dem speakers for saying Trump is bad comments interspersed with needing to come together as a nation and respect each other. How awful right? Republican convention speakers were so much better talking about how stupid everyone is and how we need to strip rights away and hate foreigners and that the country is a shithole full of crime. Literally all they do is insult and call people childish names and zero positive hope for anything mixed with thinly veiled hints at violence and corruption.
Where were you the last 16 years?
Things were great in the USA during Obama's time in office, you know when things really went to shit and people got all aggro and our media was filled with hatred and protests and racist acts and USA became unwelcoming? 2016-2020. Who was in office then? Oh yah it was Trump's time in office.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hehe
giving them another 4yrs is going to change anything.
Sounds great. Biden's administration did more for people's general prosperity in the last 4 years than Trump has done for anything or anyone in his entire life.
It's so weird to hear through the DNC. All the speeches were basically "Organge man bad, can't let him back".
When Dems have held the office 12 out of the last 16yrs. And somehow all the problems in America are the result of Trump.
Where the fuck have you guys been and what the fuck did you do all these time? And somehow they want people to believe that giving them another 4yrs is going to change anything.
CNN reported in September 2020 that GDP grew 4.1% on average under Democrats, versus 2.5% under Republicans, from 1945 through the second quarter of 2020, a difference of 1.6 percentage points.[3] The New York Times reported in February 2021 that: "Since 1933, the economy has grown at an annual average rate of 4.6 percent under Democratic presidents and 2.4 percent under Republicans...The average income of Americans would be more than double its current level if the economy had somehow grown at the Democratic rate for all of the past nine decades.
If you look at the table per President you'll that Trump had the worse economic performance of any President. Biggly bad at managing the economy. It's probably what happens when you have small hands.
Well, if you want to go historical, I should also point out that Reps have almost always been cleaning up the mess for Dems. Going as far back Jimmy Carter, where was the highest inflation over 10%. And made a significant negative impact to real disposable income to American adjusted to inflation.
Reagan came in and lowered it to below 5% IIRC, and ever since it has always been Dems presidents raise inflation, Reps lower them. If you factor GDP growth relative to inflation, the Reps actually done better overall.
Well, if you want to go historical, I should also point out that Reps have almost always been cleaning up the mess for Dems. Going as far back Jimmy Carter, where was the highest inflation over 10%. And made a significant negative impact to real disposable income to American adjusted to inflation.
Reagan came in and lowered it to below 5% IIRC, and ever since it has always been Dems presidents raise inflation, Reps lower them. If you factor GDP growth relative to inflation, the Reps actually done better overall.
What mess you lying shit bag? Which wars did the Dems start? Which financial crises did they start?
Blinder and Watson found that since 1945 the average inflation rate was higher under Republican presidents than under Democrats, though inflation tended to rise under Democrats but fall under Republicans.[1]
Quote:
CNN reported in October 2020 that 10 of the last 11 recessions started under Republican presidents, and that “Every Republican president since Benjamin Harrison, who served from 1889 to 1893, had a recession start in their first term in office
Quote:
Stock market returns are also higher under Democratic presidents.[21] CNN reported in September 2020 that: “Since 1945, the S&P 500 has averaged an annual gain of 11.2% during years when Democrats controlled the White House, according to CFRA Research. That's well ahead of the 6.9% average gain under Republicans.”[3] Analysis conducted by S&P Capital IQ in 2016 found similar results since 1901.[22] Blinder and Watson estimated that the S&P 500 returned 8.4% annually on average under Democrats, versus 2.7% under Republicans, a difference of 5.7% percentage points. This computation used the average value in last year of the president's term, minus the average value in last year of previous term.[1]
How the Dems gonna win the young white male vote with this? This way too urban for them.
Yah, I don't really like either party trying to get celebrities to endorse them ... who the hell cares how George Cooney or Taylor Swift or Aaron Rodgers votes.
Well, if you want to go historical, I should also point out that Reps have almost always been cleaning up the mess for Dems. Going as far back Jimmy Carter, where was the highest inflation over 10%.
I think that might have a little bit to do with your REPUBLICAN friend Gerald Ford that he replaced... you know... this Gerald Ford? The genius himself? The guy who inconceivably pardoned Nixon?