[The Beast1]

Obamacare was designed to extract as much money from the aging boomer population.

They basically want to bankrupt the boomers and kill them off before they start collecting their SS checks. The government uses social security as an extra revenue source and if the boomers had the same private healthcare system going the private insurance companies would be able to keep a larger portion of them alive in homes, on drugs, or whatever all while collecting their entitled social security checks.

My premiums are still the same and are stupid affordable. Obamacare is an attempt to drain the wealth that the boomers have and drive it upwards all while limiting care and killing them off faster.

I don't care for Russel Brandt. Yes he's alpha, has stellar game, etc etc. He's super annoying in my eyes and his character he plays in film is just even more annoying.

Sour grapes? Sure. Bisexual and maybe a closeted gay guy? Very sure. Revolutionary? Ha! Not in a million years. The system benefits him too much and it'll end up being an "occupy" like movement where a bunch of rich kids get angry, make a mess, and nothing changes.

[Veloce]

The revolution will not come from any OWS bullshit, or civil discussion and debate, or celebrities getting on their soapbox.

The revolution will come the way all true revolutions manifest; in ugly, irrational, violent ways where the majority of the population reaches a tipping point in their dissatisfaction and disgust with their political leaders. The U.S. has done an incredible job of maintaining a police and prison state to ward off peasant uprisings and disgruntled military servicemen and this is no accident. As we move towards a totalitarian state, it doesn't necessarily mean that a true revolution is impossible, but it will be very fucking ugly.

[Ocelot]

(10-25-2013 10:35 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

I was just using the term for the thread's sake.

TBH, it should be "wealth gap". The wealthy elites continue to own a larger and larger % of the economy. And Obama's policies help them out greatly in their increases.

The "wealth gap" seems a misleading thing to focus on. All it tells us is how much better some people have it than some other people. If everyone was shit poor, the wealth gap would be small, does that make it a more desirable state of affairs? The wealth gap is a statistic the left love, because it appeals to the latent entitlement mentality of the masses, but it doesn't tell us anything useful on its own.

Throughout the 1800s, the gap between the rich and the poor in the USA increased tremendously, but so did the standard of living of the poor. There was a net gain to everyone, the rich just gained more. The difference now is that the wealth the rich are gaining is being transferred to them from the middle classes.

(10-25-2013 06:33 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

I believe it's the nouveau riche -- the car dealer that's made 2 mill, the poster on this board who's making 200k--that have the false impression that they are really special and deserve to keep all of that money despite it being extracted from a society where most people work paycheck to paycheck to preserve the structure where it's possible for the coffee achievers to make big money.

No one ever made 10 million alone on a desert island, all wealthy people became wealthy in concert with many people working for almost nothing.

One has to wonder where the factories, machines, capital investment and the incentive to create jobs and improve technology would come from in your ideal society.

(10-25-2013 08:03 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

Being more economically free than the USA today isn't something to brag about.

We just watched the govt. let their banker friends grow their businesses too large. And then watched the govt. do nothing about their shady trading of bad debt. And then when the whole thing came crashing down we watched the govt. take from the middle class and give to these elites.

Bailing the banks out with other people's money can hardly be considered a mark of economic freedom.

(10-25-2013 07:52 AM)Flint Wrote:  

If you can give an example of how radical free market policies actually created more social equality, let me know.

I don't think anyone on the right is claiming that a free market creates more social equality, or that it would even be desirable to do so. I could give plenty of examples of how 'radical free market policies' improved the lot of the average working man, though.

[Starke]

(10-25-2013 06:02 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

As far as the Scandinavia countries, you have a few very wealthy elites and everyone else has no chance but to be a worker bee cog in the system.

Sounds like you haven't spent much time, if any, in Scandinavia.

The opportunities available to even the lowest socio-economic groups here are huge;
-Free access to private schools
-University education is tuition free, even if you study abroad
-World-class free health care
-Economies which have been the only ones in Europe to experience little-to-no recession
-A vibrant tech/business scene which has fostered numerous world-leading tech startups

Scandinavia has many irritating problems on an ideological level, but it's not Soviet Russia - in terms of equality of opportunity, it's hard to imagine anywhere superior.

[MrXY]

Brand is a typical celebrity in that he is an economic ignoramus and a complete hypocrite

[Starke]

(10-25-2013 02:19 PM)frenchie Wrote:  

Obamacare was designed to extract as much money from the aging boomer population.

They basically want to bankrupt the boomers and kill them off before they start collecting their SS checks. The government uses social security as an extra revenue source and if the boomers had the same private healthcare system going the private insurance companies would be able to keep a larger portion of them alive in homes, on drugs, or whatever all while collecting their entitled social security checks.

My premiums are still the same and are stupid affordable. Obamacare is an attempt to drain the wealth that the boomers have and drive it upwards all while limiting care and killing them off faster.

The big-spending boomers have saddled the ensuing generations with a colossal debt.

A mild inconvenience in the form of increased health-care costs for those who haven't planned adequately for their future is hardly repayment for their tearing up of the generational contract.

[ComebackKid]

Haven't read comments by others. He is stupid as fuck, but dresses it up by using a lot of big words.

[It_is_my_time]

(10-25-2013 03:46 PM)Starke Wrote:  

(10-25-2013 06:02 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

As far as the Scandinavia countries, you have a few very wealthy elites and everyone else has no chance but to be a worker bee cog in the system.

Sounds like you haven't spent much time, if any, in Scandinavia.

The opportunities available to even the lowest socio-economic groups here are huge;
-Free access to private schools
-University education is tuition free, even if you study abroad
-World-class free health care
-Economies which have been the only ones in Europe to experience little-to-no recession
-A vibrant tech/business scene which has fostered numerous world-leading tech startups

Scandinavia has many irritating problems on an ideological level, but it's not Soviet Russia - in terms of equality of opportunity, it's hard to imagine anywhere superior.

It isn't "free". You have at least half your pay taken from you by the govt. with their guns so you pay for these services if you want to or not.

At the current rate these countries are headed, the most "successful" liberal economic societies will only be over run by Islam in 100 or so years. Which is better than what other examples of liberal economics has given us. At least you guys would have made it a few generations.

[It_is_my_time]

Quote:

Bailing the banks out with other people's money can hardly be considered a mark of economic freedom.

That was my purpose. I was stating that being more "economically free" than the USA today is nothing to really brag about.

[Que enspastic]

I'm really surprised people think Brand "owned" Paxton.

Paxton agreed with him that there are problems in the world. He was befuddled by the details of Brand's weird off-the-cuff Marxist-Green revolution. I don't like global warming but I don't see a solution. Any country that attempts to go green will be obliterated economically by those that continue to industrialise at pace. Classic prisoner's dilemma.

What Brand was saying was akin to espousing that we should fly to Jupiter's most habitable moon and set up a new society where everyone wins.

Yes, sounds great, have any details? It sounds completely infeasible but go on.

[Que enspastic]

http://www.economist.com/blogs/johnson/2.../variation

[MrXY]

(10-25-2013 03:46 PM)Starke Wrote:  

(10-25-2013 06:02 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

As far as the Scandinavia countries, you have a few very wealthy elites and everyone else has no chance but to be a worker bee cog in the system.

Sounds like you haven't spent much time, if any, in Scandinavia.

The opportunities available to even the lowest socio-economic groups here are huge;
-Free access to private schools
-University education is tuition free, even if you study abroad
-World-class free health care
-Economies which have been the only ones in Europe to experience little-to-no recession
-A vibrant tech/business scene which has fostered numerous world-leading tech startups

Scandinavia has many irritating problems on an ideological level, but it's not Soviet Russia - in terms of equality of opportunity, it's hard to imagine anywhere superior.

Scandinavian countries are small homogenous societies

Sweden's population is 9 million-my state of Florida alone has 19 million

They have almost no military expenses because they are protected by others

I question the "world class" health care claim-how many cutting edge medical research and clinical practices have originated in Scandinavia versus the US?

Anything you pay for with heavy taxes is not "free" it's shocking that you don't realize that

Wait until Scandinavia is 35% Muslim and you'll see how well the welfare state works in a multicultural society

[LEMONed IScream]

I really admire Brand when it comes to his eloquency and intelligence regarding certain aspects. Not this one, he's just a party leftist guy, nothing to see here. I wouldn't discard the fact that he's doing this to draw more attention from the general population. He likes being the center of things. If he applied his social skills and his intelligence as much as he could in the world of politics and economics he could succeed. But not exactly this way, he may succeed here but it will be among the Occupiers and closet lefties. Nothing to see. Keep to his videos messing with women!

[Jon's Coffee Shop]

I wonder if Russell understands that what he is talking about is called Communism. He is right that there is a underclass of people who are sick of the political elite dictating to them social policy, but he does not understand what the underclass people in both England and America want.

What the underclass really wants:

Increased Nationalism
Tighter border security/reduced immigration
A stronger focus on family values
Free Markets
Individuality

What Russell thinks the underclass wants:

'Utopian' Communism.

If Liberal hollywood actually listen to what the working poor in the west wanted they would label them racist's than immediately scurry back to their elite enclaves and stick their heads in the sand.

[Veloce]

That's because Liberal Hollywood couldn't be more out-of-touch with the working class, or the rest of the country for that matter, excluding NY.

Hollywood socialites LOVE getting on their soapbox and talking about the pressing issues the world and our country faces. They LOVE spouting progressive rhetoric that makes viewers at home feel warm and fuzzy inside. He's just playing into the traditional relationship that all of Hollywood has been maintaining for the last century: Hollywood makes the average person feel heard and understood; this is a huge force in the pacification of an entire populace. Actors get on screen and channel the frustrations and hopes and desires of the average automaton that's glued to the T.V. That person feels like they have a friend in Hollywood, they have a voice.

But it's bullshit. 100%. Meet any of these people in person and they're the most self-absorbed, out-of-touch people you will ever meet. They all walk around making outlandish statements like, "There's enough for everyone." and openly boast about supporting their charity-du-jour and how important it is that we save the environment and save the whales and save the seals and save the children in African and the women in Juarez and the tigers in China. Meanwhile 75% of their existence is dedicated to visits to their esthetician, masseuse, therapist, acupuncturist, yoga instructor, meditation guru, pot dealer, coke dealer, hairstylist, style consultant, interior decorator, agent, and team of personal assistants that handle the grueling daily responsibilities like getting coffee and freshly pressed green juice.

Revolution. Please.

[Jon's Coffee Shop]

^Exactly. If Hollywood is so butthurt about the massive amount of wealth they have been able to generate thanks to free market capitalism, why doesn't the government just step in and tax the film industry at say, 75%? See how much these champagne socialists enjoy some "progressive" corporate tax.

[tylerdurden1993]

I really don't know why everyone was licking his arse over this interview in which he says nothing of actual substance and no solutions to the problems he put forward. Most of it was politicians don't understand working people bla bla bla, corporations taking worlds resources profits bla bla bla, wealth dispartity bla bla bla and when paxman asked him a question he just uses big words so morons think that he's smart when in fact hes saying nothing or just complimented his beard.

I do like the talk of the revolution though he really doesn't have a clue how would it happen would it be a bottom up revolution a top down a coup de etat. Most normal people are too lazy to care meaning we have a paradox in which if there was a major political scandal happened a majority don't care but if something happened on x factor or a sports game that people didn't like thered be rioting on the streets. Tragic

[Veloce]

(10-25-2013 06:48 PM)tylerdurden1993 Wrote:  

Most normal people are too lazy to care meaning we have a paradox in which if there was a major political scandal happened a majority don't care but if something happened on x factor or a sports game that people didn't like thered be rioting on the streets. Tragic

Exactly. This is not a breeding ground for revolution.

Yes, there's economic disparity and inequality. But people are still far too comfortable and complacent to do anything about it.

[kosko]

(10-25-2013 06:02 PM)Jons Coffee Shop Wrote:  

I wonder if Russell understands that what he is talking about is called Communism. He is right that there is a underclass of people who are sick of the political elite dictating to them social policy, but he does not understand what the underclass people in both England and America want.

What the underclass really wants:

Increased Nationalism
Tighter border security/reduced immigration
A stronger focus on family values
Free Markets
Individuality

What Russell thinks the underclass wants:

'Utopian' Communism.

If Liberal hollywood actually listen to what the working poor in the west wanted they would label them racist's than immediately scurry back to their elite enclaves and stick their heads in the sand.

Nationalism is too hardcore and messy for lefties. Utopian pie in the sky communism is more soothing even though both have to be achieved through a barrel of a gun. I prefer nationalism and people withe. It's borders banding together to look out for each other, It's how all of us enjoy are lifestyles. Nationalism still has winners and looser and it does not please everybody. Utopian hates this because it signals "inequality" and hard work. They want it easy, they want revolution to be soft and something they can enjoy on their IPad. OWS showed the emperor had no clothes as far as a generation goes to move anything but their bowels. The movement burned out after nobody could agree on any action to take that would of made any meaningful action. In hindsight is was a commie operation front the start which was why it was able to draw in so many supporters as the love that campfire song Utopian shit even if they can't see the wolves off in the trees that follow it.

[Starke]

(10-25-2013 04:12 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

(10-25-2013 03:46 PM)Starke Wrote:  

(10-25-2013 06:02 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

As far as the Scandinavia countries, you have a few very wealthy elites and everyone else has no chance but to be a worker bee cog in the system.

Sounds like you haven't spent much time, if any, in Scandinavia.

The opportunities available to even the lowest socio-economic groups here are huge;
-Free access to private schools
-University education is tuition free, even if you study abroad
-World-class free health care
-Economies which have been the only ones in Europe to experience little-to-no recession
-A vibrant tech/business scene which has fostered numerous world-leading tech startups

Scandinavia has many irritating problems on an ideological level, but it's not Soviet Russia - in terms of equality of opportunity, it's hard to imagine anywhere superior.

It isn't "free". You have at least half your pay taken from you by the govt. with their guns so you pay for these services if you want to or not.

It's education and healthcare systems are free at the point of use. Regardless of whether you're a kid whose parents are millionaires or heroin addicts.
"Everyone else has no chance but to be a worker bee cog in the system." is a completely wrong statement to make about the most socially mobile region of the world.

Also, 'with guns'? That's just Reason magazine mantra(see more: https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/lying-...64b9aed/), not really applicable in this case.
Relatively high tax-rates experience widespread public approval in Scandinavia, from both left and right.
The reason being that there is recognition, backed up by international league tables, that they are receiving high quality public services.

(10-25-2013 04:12 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

At the current rate these countries are headed, the most "successful" liberal economic societies will only be over run by Islam in 100 or so years. Which is better than what other examples of liberal economics has given us. At least you guys would have made it a few generations.

I actually agree with you here, Islamic immigration is the largest problem in liberal Euro states. Though this is separate from the idea of providing public services.
Extreme immigration was introduced to Sweden in the 90s by right-wing free-marketers, eager to reduce wages (by having a surplus of low-skilled cheap foreign labour).

[It_is_my_time]

(10-25-2013 08:01 PM)Starke Wrote:  

(10-25-2013 04:12 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

(10-25-2013 03:46 PM)Starke Wrote:  

(10-25-2013 06:02 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

As far as the Scandinavia countries, you have a few very wealthy elites and everyone else has no chance but to be a worker bee cog in the system.

Sounds like you haven't spent much time, if any, in Scandinavia.

The opportunities available to even the lowest socio-economic groups here are huge;
-Free access to private schools
-University education is tuition free, even if you study abroad
-World-class free health care
-Economies which have been the only ones in Europe to experience little-to-no recession
-A vibrant tech/business scene which has fostered numerous world-leading tech startups

Scandinavia has many irritating problems on an ideological level, but it's not Soviet Russia - in terms of equality of opportunity, it's hard to imagine anywhere superior.

It isn't "free". You have at least half your pay taken from you by the govt. with their guns so you pay for these services if you want to or not.

It's education and healthcare systems are free at the point of use. Regardless of whether you're a kid whose parents are millionaires or heroin addicts.
"Everyone else has no chance but to be a worker bee cog in the system." is a completely wrong statement to make about the most socially mobile region of the world.

Also, 'with guns'? That's just Reason magazine mantra(see more: https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/lying-...64b9aed/), not really applicable in this case.
Relatively high tax-rates experience widespread public approval in Scandinavia, from both left and right.
The reason being that there is recognition, backed up by international league tables, that they are receiving high quality public services.

(10-25-2013 04:12 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

At the current rate these countries are headed, the most "successful" liberal economic societies will only be over run by Islam in 100 or so years. Which is better than what other examples of liberal economics has given us. At least you guys would have made it a few generations.

I actually agree with you here, Islamic immigration is the largest problem in liberal Euro states. Though this is separate from the idea of providing public services.
Extreme immigration was introduced to Sweden in the 90s by right-wing free-marketers, eager to reduce wages (by having a surplus of low-skilled cheap foreign labour).

Well, if you don't pay your taxes to pay for these services, then the govt. comes with their guns and hauls you away. What is cool about the USA, we don't have to pay for all of that. We pay for some of it, but not all of it. So we have more freedom to choose these things based on how much we want to save/prepare for it. Though that is slowly dying out in the USA.

And your Islamic immigration is largely due to your feminist socialist govt. pushing women to not have kids and pretend to be men. But at the same time socialism depends on more young people working to pay for the older people living the easy life. Since the feminist don't want the women having kids, you have to import new workers and they are having all the kids.

[LeBeau]

(10-25-2013 03:06 PM)thedude3737 Wrote:  

The revolution will not come from any OWS bullshit, or civil discussion and debate, or celebrities getting on their soapbox.

The revolution will come the way all true revolutions manifest; in ugly, irrational, violent ways where the majority of the population reaches a tipping point in their dissatisfaction and disgust with their political leaders. The U.S. has done an incredible job of maintaining a police and prison state to ward off peasant uprisings and disgruntled military servicemen and this is no accident. As we move towards a totalitarian state, it doesn't necessarily mean that a true revolution is impossible, but it will be very fucking ugly.

thedude dropping lot of good points in this thread.

It always surprises me just how ignorant people are of history that's not even 100 years old.

As if we haven't seen things get worse with radical actions attempted in the past.

For example:

OR


The Business Plot:

[Starke]

(10-25-2013 04:51 PM)MrXY Wrote:  

Scandinavian countries are small homogenous societies

Untrue. 17.3% of the current population have foreign parent/s, a higher proportion aren't ethnic swedes.

(10-25-2013 04:51 PM)MrXY Wrote:  

Sweden's population is 9 million-my state of Florida alone has 19 million

I don't see your point? Germany has 82 million and has thrived under a high tax, high public spending regime.

(10-25-2013 04:51 PM)MrXY Wrote:  

They have almost no military expenses because they are protected by others

They pay 1.2% of GDP, contribute to NATO (sent troops to aide American invasions of Afghan & Libya), contribute to EU and are regarded as a powerhouse of international diplomacy. Nobody is defending them out of the good of their hearts, they pay like everyone else.

(10-25-2013 04:51 PM)MrXY Wrote:  

I question the "world class" health care claim-how many cutting edge medical research and clinical practices have originated in Scandinavia versus the US?

The USA ranks 28th in the OECD's life expectancy chart, Sweden is 9th.
Sweden has a third more doctors (per capita), a third less preventable deaths and an infant mortality rate HALF that of of the USA.
Yet Americans pay twice as much per-capita on healthcare than a Swede does.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co...alt%29.png

It's also home to the world-class Karolinska Insitute, a medical university generally held to be in the world top 10. Not bad for a 'small' country.
(The uni is free to all European students, too )

(10-25-2013 04:51 PM)MrXY Wrote:  

Anything you pay for with heavy taxes is not "free" it's shocking that you don't realize that

Its education and healthcare systems are free at the point of use. Regardless of whether you're a kid whose parents are millionaires or heroin addicts.

[iknowexactly]

(10-25-2013 09:16 AM)RexImperator Wrote:  

If America needs a "revolution" it needs to be one that originates with the entrepreneur class/small business owners.

Yes, the wealthy dry cleaners and car dealers in various towns could shoot all the fast food service employees and people who clean things.

[iknowexactly]

(10-25-2013 08:23 PM)Starke Wrote:  

The USA ranks 28th in the OECD's life expectancy chart, Sweden is 9th.
Sweden has a third more doctors (per capita), a third less preventable deaths and an infant mortality rate HALF that of of the USA.
Yet Americans pay twice as much per-capita on healthcare than a Swede does.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co...alt%29.png

It's also home to the world-class Karolinska Insitute, a medical university generally held to be in the world top 10. Not bad for a 'small' country.
(The uni is free to all European students, too )

(10-25-2013 04:51 PM)MrXY Wrote:  

Anything you pay for with heavy taxes is not "free" it's shocking that you don't realize that

Its education and healthcare systems are free at the point of use. Regardless of whether you're a kid whose parents are millionaires or heroin addicts.

That's just about enough out of you Starke with your goddam confounding FACTS.

ALPHAS don't need facts. They just bully everyone into silence and get the hot dumb chicks.