[RexImperator]

(10-25-2013 03:46 PM)Starke Wrote:  

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

Not bad at all. If I look at it rationally and if I were there, I would be ahead in the game compared to living in the U.S. since I would have no student loan debt and health care. I can see the appeal.

[MunichSux]

@ dude : "... that handle the grueling daily responsibilities like getting coffee and freshly pressed green juice. " Thumbs up for that insight, well written !

Generally, countries that embraced capitalism after WW II enjoyed a tremendous increase in the general quality of life. If I hit minimum standard of living here in Germany (it's called "Hartz 4", named after one of the main designer of Germany's most aggressive welfare reform in decades), I'd still have a condo and high-speed internet access and be able to pay for my food ! Would have to budget strictly, but it'd be doable.

Would I have my very own condo (around 150 k US$) and just the average salary, I'd live and feel like a king. Obviously a highly subjective experience as I never felt or feel any need for extravagant hobbies or stuff.

Capitalism works because it enables smart entrepreneurs to get capital, satisfy the population's needs (can anyone imagine a world without Google, Microsoft, Wal-Mart, Aldi / Trader Joe's etc?) and if some folks get fantastically rich in the process, so be it.

On Hartz IV : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartz_concept

[Easy E]

(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.

True.

Revolution sounds cool, until you actually look at revolutions throughout history:

[Veloce]

What I see in the U.S. is a massively growing block of explosive.

-An entire generation of college graduates buried under debt with dismal job opportunities
-An entire agriculture industry that fucks over individual farmers
-A capitalist system that's managed to crush unions and force previously unionized workers into pay and benefit cuts, for no other reason than inflated bonuses for executives
-A military force that's been mobilized for two of the longest wars in u.s. history, the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, for reasons that are dubious at best
-the destruction of the middle class
-an entire generation of disenfranchised men

Who am I missing? I'm sure there are too many to list. Revolts have started for less, but there's a fundamental difference; the standard of living. The only thing I see missing here, the spark to ignite the flame, is the fact that conditions here just aren't bad enough. Far from it actually. It's only when we see thousands of men lining up at soup kitchens will any real revolt take place.

All the RVFers that talk about "loading up on ammunition" in that scenario...I get it and I agree somewhat. I think if things ever get to that level of violence, most of it will be direct at the "nobility class".

[WesternCancer]

I like Brand's passion, but whats the point?

Why care about the poor, why care about the rich being infinitely richer?

Whats in it for me? If all of his proposed changes are made will I be able to live a better life than I potentially can now by skillfully manipulating the current system?

[lskdfjldsf]

Brand's father left when he was a baby, and he was raised by his mother. He's a nice guy and well spoken but if you look at the laundry list of problems in his life, it's no secret where they came from. This is a quite common thing in the UK from what I noticed - guys get raised by single moms and become the most radical leftists on earth.

Will never understand how some people can spend the entirety of their emotional and political energy on demonizing the wealthy. It's an abstraction, a group of people most of them have never seen or heard of, yet they demonize them for every one of their problems like the people are entering their houses at night and stealing money from their wallets. I see this in every single political thread, no matter where the discussion takes place, and it's as old as history itself.

People want a boogeyman, they always have and always will. When things aren't going well for them, or they feel insecure (fueled largely by the illusion that everyone deserves to grow up and have a happy ending with a nice house), they need someone to point to and say "Look, he's doing better while I'm doing worse!". It's a psychological illness as bad as feminists who think men are lurking in the shadows to rape them. Across every single culture, across every single period in human history, people have always been envious of the wealthy because they see the success of others, and their willingness to defend and protect that success, as a personal threat to them.

So for the average man, he has two choices. He can spend his whole life blaming the wealthy for societies woes and maybe get a revolution that stuffs his pockets with more goodies by stealing from others, or he can take an hour of each day to think of a new idea, a new product, or a new service so he can rise in status and have success for himself... success that's actually EARNED.

I spent years living in Western Europe, and I'm still here and see it every day. European systems are the OPPOSITE of what biology intended. They are NOT what made the West an economic power, rather, they are the result of people wanting to reap the benefits when power was already attained. The current systems in place are a 21st century concoction and mark my words, they will go belly up. The proof and evidence are all around us yet Europeans cover their eyes and ears, smugly proclaiming to the world how generous and prosperous they think they are, while sloth, greed, and envy plague their innermost souls.

They stifle the fire that every man SHOULD have inside of himself, to think for himself, to yearn for his own success, and not give a fuck what his neighbor is or isn't doing. The day the US becomes like this is the day I would gladly participate in a "revolution", and bet your asses I won't be on the side of the economic leeches who think "financial equality" is a virtue.

[It_is_my_time]

(10-25-2013 09:59 PM)RexImperator Wrote:  

(10-25-2013 03:46 PM)Starke Wrote:  

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

Not bad at all. If I look at it rationally and if I were there, I would be ahead in the game compared to living in the U.S. since I would have no student loan debt and health care. I can see the appeal.

Looking at it too short term.

In the USA you have the freedom to choose to pay for college or not. I the socialist countries you pay for it, whether you use it or not in higher income taxes.

In the USA you have the freedom to choose your healthcare plan/cost. In the socialist countries you pay for it and being a man you also help pay for women to go.

Losing 1/2 of each paycheck for the rest of your life would be terrible.

[Starke]

(10-26-2013 03:52 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

Looking at it too short term.

In the USA you have the freedom to choose to pay for college or not. I the socialist countries you pay for it, whether you use it or not in higher income taxes.

In the USA you have the freedom to choose your healthcare plan/cost. In the socialist countries you pay for it and being a man you also help pay for women to go.

Losing 1/2 of each paycheck for the rest of your life would be terrible.

You have the 'freedom to choose' sure, but if you are born lower-middle class or below - all of your options are sub-standard.

In terms of per-capita spending, an American spends twice as much on healthcare. Regardless of whether it's government or himself paying it. Yet the quality of care is lower.
That sounds pretty 'terrible'.

Opportunity can be measured in the ability of a citizen to climb the socio-economic ladder over their lifetime.
Of developed nations, those without high public spending rank the worst - those with strong public spending rank the best. (in graph below, lower number indicates higher rates of social mobility)


The mentality of "i don't wanna have half my paycheck taken by the government" is the short term one. You are going to pay for these things anyway.
A well run public-spending program leads to the the utilization of economies of scale - meaning that the cost per user is often half of what it would be for an individual buyer.

[lskdfjldsf]

Why does income mobility matter in a society where there's little income disparity to begin with? I'm sure it's easy to climb the ladder in Denmark, when the "jump" from poor to rich is only a 1000€ difference in monthly income. In the US, on the other hand, you can have billionaires and minimum wage workers in the same city. Of course the graph will look different, because you're comparing apples and oranges.

Starke, have you ever been hospitalized in the US? How can Europeans accurately compare the quality of healthcare without the first-hand experience to do so? If I had a nickel for everytime a Scandinavian threw a graph at me and said, "look, we're better!" I wouldn't need to work in the first place.

[Starke]

(10-26-2013 08:17 AM)Blick Mang Wrote:  

Why does income mobility matter in a society where there's little income disparity to begin with? I'm sure it's easy to climb the ladder in Denmark, when the "jump" from poor to rich is only a 1000€ difference in monthly income. In the US, on the other hand, you can have billionaires and minimum wage workers in the same city. Of course the graph will look different, because you're comparing apples and oranges.

Starke, have you ever been hospitalized in the US? How can Europeans accurately compare the quality of healthcare without the first-hand experience to do so? If I had a nickel for everytime a Scandinavian threw a graph at me and said, "look, we're better!" I wouldn't need to work in the first place.

I'm no Scandinavian, I'm a Brit based in Sweden who has also lived 2 years in the US.
I came here for the women, I stayed for the extremely high quality of life.

Also, this statement "the "jump" from poor to rich is only a 1000€ difference in monthly income" doesn't hold true when you examine the metrics used..
Comprehensive studies of social mobility use averages of income adjusted for relative purchasing power, to ensure a fair comparison.

Scandinavia also has millionaires and billionaires living in the same cities as those on minimum wage, the difference is that the rich here don't have to live in maximum-security gated communities - when you give the poor a fair shake, they are less likely to want to commit crimes against their social betters.

[It_is_my_time]

(10-26-2013 08:03 AM)Starke Wrote:  

(10-26-2013 03:52 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

Looking at it too short term.

In the USA you have the freedom to choose to pay for college or not. I the socialist countries you pay for it, whether you use it or not in higher income taxes.

In the USA you have the freedom to choose your healthcare plan/cost. In the socialist countries you pay for it and being a man you also help pay for women to go.

Losing 1/2 of each paycheck for the rest of your life would be terrible.

You have the 'freedom to choose' sure, but if you are born lower-middle class or below - all of your options are sub-standard.

In terms of per-capita spending, an American spends twice as much on healthcare. Regardless of whether it's government or himself paying it. Yet the quality of care is lower.
That sounds pretty 'terrible'.

Opportunity can be measured in the ability of a citizen to climb the socio-economic ladder over their lifetime.
Of developed nations, those without high public spending rank the worst - those with strong public spending rank the best. (in graph below, lower number indicates higher rates of social mobility)


The mentality of "i don't wanna have half my paycheck taken by the government" is the short term one. You are going to pay for these things anyway.
A well run public-spending program leads to the the utilization of economies of scale - meaning that the cost per user is often half of what it would be for an individual buyer.

With as many of the wealthy elites from other countries that come here, I am not buying it.

In the USA you have the freedom to have crappy insurance or the best insurance in the world. Depends what you want to work for.

In the socialist countries you are but a worker bee, half your salary going to keeping your head above water the other half taken by the govt in hopes that it doesn't go bankrupt and gives you nothing in return. Which is looking more and more likely.

[It_is_my_time]

(10-26-2013 11:28 AM)Starke Wrote:  

(10-26-2013 08:17 AM)Blick Mang Wrote:  

Why does income mobility matter in a society where there's little income disparity to begin with? I'm sure it's easy to climb the ladder in Denmark, when the "jump" from poor to rich is only a 1000€ difference in monthly income. In the US, on the other hand, you can have billionaires and minimum wage workers in the same city. Of course the graph will look different, because you're comparing apples and oranges.

Starke, have you ever been hospitalized in the US? How can Europeans accurately compare the quality of healthcare without the first-hand experience to do so? If I had a nickel for everytime a Scandinavian threw a graph at me and said, "look, we're better!" I wouldn't need to work in the first place.

I'm no Scandinavian, I'm a Brit based in Sweden who has also lived 2 years in the US.
I came here for the women, I stayed for the extremely high quality of life.

Also, this statement "the "jump" from poor to rich is only a 1000€ difference in monthly income" doesn't hold true when you examine the metrics used..
Comprehensive studies of social mobility use averages of income adjusted for relative purchasing power, to ensure a fair comparison.

Scandinavia also has millionaires and billionaires living in the same cities as those on minimum wage, the difference is that the rich here don't have to live in maximum-security gated communities - when you give the poor a fair shake, they are less likely to want to commit crimes against their social betters.

Wish we could fast forward 40 years to see how "low crime" is in these countries once Islam is a true force.

The poor live good in the USA. They have free housing, free phones, cable TV, free food, on and on.

The high crime in the USA is the socialist policies that push dad's out of the house and leave the kids with no structure in their lives.

What is great is in the USA, if you want to, you can get a head. I want to get ahead, working for someone else the rest of my life to pay for women to get an easy ride isn't for me. I want to be a true alpha, free of depending on some company or govt. to get me by.

[Starke]

(10-26-2013 12:14 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

Wish we could fast forward 40 years to see how "low crime" is in these countries once Islam is a true force.

The poor live good in the USA. They have free housing, free phones, cable TV, free food, on and on.

The high crime in the USA is the socialist policies that push dad's out of the house and leave the kids with no structure in their lives.

What is great is in the USA, if you want to, you can get a head. I want to get ahead, working for someone else the rest of my life to pay for women to get an easy ride isn't for me. I want to be a true alpha, free of depending on some company or govt. to get me by.

Islam is irrelevant to the discussion here. Migration is a separate issue from the provision of public services for existing citizens.

(10-26-2013 12:14 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

The poor live good in the USA. They have free housing, free phones, cable TV, free food, on and on.

They do? In my time in the US, I encountered levels of poverty that just don't exist in Western Europe. The US has close to 50 million on food-stamps, and people going homeless when they get sick.
That's closer to what goes on in Nigeria than it is to the rest of the developed world.

(10-26-2013 12:14 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

The high crime in the USA is the socialist policies that push dad's out of the house and leave the kids with no structure in their lives.

If 'socialism' causes all the crime, then why do socialistic EU nations have a fraction of the crime that the US does?
For example, crime is endemic in Somalia, yet their socio-political structure is the antithesis of Socialism.

(10-26-2013 12:14 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

What is great is in the USA, if you want to, you can get a head. I want to get ahead, working for someone else the rest of my life to pay for women to get an easy ride isn't for me. I want to be a true alpha, free of depending on some company or govt. to get me by.

The ability to 'get ahead' is defined as high social mobility. While the United States is above say, Mexico, in this ranking, it lags most of the first world.

[Teedub]

(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

Yep. Most people are idiots. I'm talking completely lacking in any drive to know anything. In fact, if I look at a sample of say 5 friends - only 1 out of those 5 would be someone I can have a proper intellectual conversation with. That's being generous, and it's among men too. I know for a fact the ratios are worse among women. Have you ever worked with a group of women before? It's so excruciatingly shit I left my job because of it!

There will be no revolution in Britain any time soon. All that will happen is population transformation. All the world's poor will be shipped into our major cities whilst the intelligent will leave, not to other parts of the country but abroad, beginning with the men of course. The increasing hostility between the poor less intelligent indigenous and settled ethnic groups, and the new arrivals will continue and get worse. But there will be no revolution.

I cannot imagine what England will be like in 20 years, let alone 50.

[RexImperator]

The recent economic surveys I've seen show more economic mobility in "lefty" places like Canada and Northern Europe compared to the USA.

In other words, what is supposed to be the big selling point of the more laissez-faire US economic system is not actually delivering to the people in reality.

[Teedub]

On a slight tangent, a lot of people (myself included) have blamed feminism, the man being driven away from the home, basically all the things discussed in Athlone's exquisite piece about Black America and Feminism - on socialism.

However, thinking about it, the Soviet Union didn't exactly have these problems, so where else could the source be?

[It_is_my_time]

Starke Wrote:

Islam is irrelevant to the discussion here. Migration is a separate issue from the provision of public services for existing citizens.

No. The reason you have such horrible immigration problems is you have the inefficient govt. running the country into the ground. Socialism has always failed and it is failing in Europe is the women are not having kids so you have to import people who don't like you or your country or your history to keep paying for it. It is all directly tied together.

Starke Wrote:

They do? In my time in the US, I encountered levels of poverty that just don't exist in Western Europe. The US has close to 50 million on food-stamps, and people going homeless when they get sick.
That's closer to what goes on in Nigeria than it is to the rest of the developed world.

Yes, the poor in the USA live better than the poor any where in the world. They get free cell phones for goodness sakes. The poor in the USA live better than a good % of the rest of the world.

Starke Wrote:

If 'socialism' causes all the crime, then why do socialistic EU nations have a fraction of the crime that the US does?
For example, crime is endemic in Somalia, yet their socio-political structure is the antithesis of Socialism.

The EU has a higher crime rate than the USA. And they still have not even started to fully feel the Islam take over. It is only starting to get bad there.

Starke Wrote:

The ability to 'get ahead' is defined as high social mobility. While the United States is above say, Mexico, in this ranking, it lags most of the first world.

I don't know what you mean by "social mobility". In the USA you can start out poor and end up very wealthy and it happens all the time. In socialist countries you spend 1/2 your paycheck to pay the bills and 1/2 your pay check is taken by the govt in hopes some day you get a fraction of it back. The number of people who truly move up the financial ladder in the USA v. any socialist country is night and day. As a man that is what I want. To be financially well off, not to just barely get by for 40 years.

[Samseau]

(10-26-2013 12:39 PM)RexImperator Wrote:  

The recent economic surveys I've seen show more economic mobility in "lefty" places like Canada and Northern Europe compared to the USA.

In other words, what is supposed to be the big selling point of the more laissez-faire US economic system is not actually delivering to the people in reality.

Link?

[Samseau]

(10-25-2013 10:25 AM)kosko Wrote:  

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

(10-25-2013 05:37 AM)Flint Wrote:  

(10-25-2013 05:18 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

Amazing in all the leftist countries and as the western world goes more leftist, the gap between the rich and poor only grows.

I look forward to see the evidence that corroborates your claim.

In the past decades, the UK and the US have introduced the most neoliberal economic policies in the West. Welfare state benefits, too, have been reduced (and no, Obamacare is not gonna change the overall trend) and these two countries have much wider income gaps than "socialist" Scandinavia.

The income gap in the USA continues to grow, as the govt. moves to the left. As the US govt. supports more socialism and feminism, the middle class shrinks, small businesses are crushed with regulations, and the large corporations run by the wealthy elite soak up the money at the top.

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.

The USA has been moving more to the right. Both look like the same in its extremes but Flint is right.

America was more "left" in the 80's then it is now. Welfare has been gutted and for what Americans pay into the system you recieve little.

Obamacsre isn't socialist healthcare it's a corporate wealth transfer.

America is a right wing faccist state not a "socialist" one.

In regards to Brand he is smart as hell but I'm guarded. Any mass mobilization that is automatically accepted by the masses is a dupe and not ideal. The masses don't know shit and simply want somebody else to package a commodity of "change" and "revolution" for them to consume. Hashtags will blaze up twitter and people will get into meaningful discussion over three lines of text and yet nothing wi change. Which is the point. The masses hold as stop checks for the status quo, any mass movement is a push to try and restore what we already have.

You are confused Kosko. Fascism is a left-wing ideology. Always was, always will be.

Nazi = National Socialist

Mussolini = Preached on the death of the individual.

Quote:

The man of Fascism is an individual who is nation and fatherland, which is a moral law, binding together individuals and the generations into a tradition and a mission, suppressing the instinct for a life enclosed within the brief round of pleasure in order to restore within duty a higher life free from the limits of time and space; a life in which the individual, through the denial of himself, through the sacrifice of his own private interests, through death itself, realizes that completely spiritual existence in which his value as a man lies.

http://www.historyguide.org/europe/duce.html


The war between the Communists and Nazi's were between two different types of Leftists, but they were all leftists nonetheless.

Right wingers are about individual power and less government intrusion.

[It_is_my_time]

(10-26-2013 12:46 PM)Teedub Wrote:  

On a slight tangent, a lot of people (myself included) have blamed feminism, the man being driven away from the home, basically all the things discussed in Athlone's exquisite piece about Black America and Feminism - on socialism.

However, thinking about it, the Soviet Union didn't exactly have these problems, so where else could the source be?

The USSR didn't have strong feminism driving men out of the house hold, mostly because they could never have afforded it.

[Starke]

(10-26-2013 03:15 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

I don't know what you mean by "social mobility". In the USA you can start out poor and end up very wealthy and it happens all the time. In socialist countries you spend 1/2 your paycheck to pay the bills and 1/2 your pay check is taken by the govt in hopes some day you get a fraction of it back. The number of people who truly move up the financial ladder in the USA v. any socialist country is night and day. As a man that is what I want. To be financially well off, not to just barely get by for 40 years.

I've refuted this point with the OECD social mobility graph linked in my earlier response.

You are offering no stats to back up your claims that the US is the only nation on earth capable of enabling social mobility, or that the American poor live better lives than the poor of any other nation.

To anyone who has traveled in the first world, these claims are absurd.

[It_is_my_time]

(10-26-2013 04:14 PM)Starke Wrote:  

(10-26-2013 03:15 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

I don't know what you mean by "social mobility". In the USA you can start out poor and end up very wealthy and it happens all the time. In socialist countries you spend 1/2 your paycheck to pay the bills and 1/2 your pay check is taken by the govt in hopes some day you get a fraction of it back. The number of people who truly move up the financial ladder in the USA v. any socialist country is night and day. As a man that is what I want. To be financially well off, not to just barely get by for 40 years.

I've refuted this point with the OECD social mobility graph linked in my earlier response.

You are offering no stats to back up your claims that the US is the only nation on earth capable of enabling social mobility, or that the American poor live better lives than the poor of any other nation.

To anyone who has traveled in the first world, these claims are absurd.

I never said the USA was the only country where you could get ahead financially. There are other countries who embrace capitalism. The USA has just been doing it the longest and has been the best at it. With that said, with the country moving to the left, it will soon disappear here.

The American poor live much better than the poor any where else and they live better than a good % of the entire world. They get housing, food, healthcare, phones, etc. etc.

Socialism = feminism and I want none of that in my life.

[Starke]

(10-26-2013 03:39 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

You are confused Kosko. Fascism is a left-wing ideology. Always was, always will be.

Nazi = National Socialist


The war between the Communists and Nazi's were between two different types of Leftists, but they were all leftists nonetheless.

Right wingers are about individual power and less government intrusion.

This is a misunderstanding of 1930s-era semantics.

'Socialist' was to 1930s German politics what 'Change' was to American politics at the tail-end of the last decade. A meaningless buzzword with universally positive connotations in the eyes of the populace.

Socialists of the day would attest, that there was absolutely nothing at all ‘socialist’ about the Nazis beyond the word being used in the title of the Nazi party; indeed, it was socialists in the main with whom Hitler’s Brownshirts battled in the streets of Germany prior to Hitler becoming Chancellor in 1933 and rounding up and execution of most of the socialists in Germany.

In the early days, Germans believed that the word ‘socialist’ in the Nazi party’s name actually did mean that Hitler’s party had socialist leanings and for a while Hitler was quite happy to allow the myth to continue as he built up the party’s numbers and strength using its following to give the party an air of popularity.

Nazism was at its core, hierarchical, whereas the ideological root of socialism was equality.

[ms224]

(10-26-2013 04:04 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

(10-26-2013 12:46 PM)Teedub Wrote:  

On a slight tangent, a lot of people (myself included) have blamed feminism, the man being driven away from the home, basically all the things discussed in Athlone's exquisite piece about Black America and Feminism - on socialism.

However, thinking about it, the Soviet Union didn't exactly have these problems, so where else could the source be?

The USSR didn't have strong feminism driving men out of the house hold, mostly because they could never have afforded it.

The USSR never got to the problems that we have in the west.

Healthcare there was non-existant (dental work without novacain anyone?), promotions based on political considerations, lack of housing and consumer goods, the list goes on. They died for a reason, a good one.

(10-26-2013 04:14 PM)Starke Wrote:  

(10-26-2013 03:15 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

I don't know what you mean by "social mobility". In the USA you can start out poor and end up very wealthy and it happens all the time. In socialist countries you spend 1/2 your paycheck to pay the bills and 1/2 your pay check is taken by the govt in hopes some day you get a fraction of it back. The number of people who truly move up the financial ladder in the USA v. any socialist country is night and day. As a man that is what I want. To be financially well off, not to just barely get by for 40 years.

I've refuted this point with the OECD social mobility graph linked in my earlier response.

You are offering no stats to back up your claims that the US is the only nation on earth capable of enabling social mobility, or that the American poor live better lives than the poor of any other nation.

To anyone who has traveled in the first world, these claims are absurd.

So why do all the enterprising immigrants flock to here?

Also, Russel brand is the kind of idiot who would be the first to get shot by a future troika.

[It_is_my_time]

Quote:

The USSR never got to the problems that we have in the west.

Healthcare there was non-existant (dental work without novacain anyone?), promotions based on political considerations, lack of housing and consumer goods, the list goes on. They died for a reason, a good one.

Yes, excellent point. The USSR could have never floated the debt needed to pay for feminism. Hell, it is bankrupting the USA.

The USSR is an excellent example of why leftist economics simply do not work.