The Bernie Gimme Gimme Gimme Crowd

[lilpixieofterror]

Sure, countries that are 'socialist' (I use quotes because "tax and spend governments that provide social extensive social services" that Americans call socialist isn't the same thing that other countries call socialist) have failed at times for a variety of other reason that didn't have to do with them being socialist.

But look at the UN's 2016 list of the happiest countries in the world according to their survey results:
1. Denmark
2. Switzerland
3. Iceland
4. Norway
5. Finland
6. Canada
7. Netherlands
8. New Zealand
9. Australia
10. Sweden

Yes, those countries have a slew of variables in common - they're all mostly-white, western, non-corrupt, stable, free, historically-Christian, democracies. Also, they're all "socialist" in the sense of this thread (they all have the kinds of policies that Sanders wants to implement).

America is also a mostly-white, western, free, historically-Christian, democracy, though quite a bit more corrupt than the countries on that list and maybe a bit less stable (you've had a civil war). So why aren't Americans as happy as people from those socialist countries? Probably the lack of socialism. As a citizen of one of those countries, let me assure you that people here find American opposition to government-run healthcare to be hilarious, and it's commonly mocked. People here also generally can't understand why the US has not elected Sanders, since modifying US policies to match the policies of the world's more successful countries just seems sensible.

Interestingly enough, most of these countries are allies of the US and the US spends billions defending them, so they don't have to defend themselves. The other two are surrounded by the US defense umbrella and/or have a history of being neutral in all conflicts. If anything, you really need to hope that Sanders doesn't get elected and the status que stays the same because your socialist paradise will come apart if it ever has to spend money defending itself. Socialism works quite well, when others are flipping the bill for your own defense. A key fact you and your buddies keep ignoring.

[Starlight]

Changing their mentality is difficult.

There's a small number of people who just aren't interested in putting any effort whatsoever into life, who will always do the absolute least possible. Some of these people are born into wealthy families, and spend their lives as trust-fund kids with flashy cars, who proceed to live a life of luxury on inherited wealth. And others who are born into very poor families, and will spend their lives on welfare and achieving nothing and aspiring to nothing.

On the whole, I think changing people's mentality is close to impossible. So, yes, obviously people like this will exist at every level of society, and there's basically nothing we can do to change that.

But a mistake I think people commonly make is that they imagine that people's mentality is easy to change, and that welfare in particular changes it. So they imagine that government welfare makes these people lazy. It's as if they think government welfare is a giant factory that takes in productive members of society and churns out lazy ones.

In reality, it's simply not that easy to change people's psychologies, and its vastly beyond the power of government welfare to make people lazy. The most that can be said is that a small segment of the lazy people in the population - ie those who happen to be poor - will receive government welfare, and due to their complete lack of ambition in life they will just mindlessly live out their lives on it. Their laziness is not very useful for society, but it's no better or worse than the lazy trust-fund kid down the block who's speeding in his parent's flash car and doing drugs in parties with his rich friends. In neither case does the government have the power to reach into their minds and make them want to succeed at life. Just as all that money is being wasted on the lazy rich kid, so too a (much lesser) amount of money is being wasted on the lazy poor kid.

But when considering a question like "Should we let poor people starve to death?" I don't consider an answer of "there are lazy people in the world, and it's so important that we never give any help whatsoever to a lazy person, that it's better to let all the poor people starve to death in case one of them happens to be lazy" to be acceptable. As a society, we've got to help the people who are in need, because, well, civilization. That's what separates us from the barbarians. Helping other people is what makes us good people. It's inevitable that some percentage of the poor people we end up helping will also be people who are lazy. So be it.

[Cow Poke]

There's a small number of people who just aren't interested in putting any effort whatsoever into life, who will always do the absolute least possible.

How small is that number?

[lilpixieofterror]

But, in order to provide all the FREE STUFF, America needs a bunch of really stupid really rich people. Unfortunately, most people don't get rich by being stupid.

The US government seems to be stupid enough to provide billions in free defense, so the rest of the western world can afford to spend their money on huge socialist programs. If anything, he should keep hoping that the status que doesn't change or else his socialist paradise would start to fall apart at the seams.

[Starlight]

This seems a bit odd Starlight, that an otherwise democratic socialist country would have a "right wing government". How does that happen if the people appreciate a government that works for them rather than no government, or as little government as possible, as the "right wing" in the U.S. advocates for. I'm guessing that maybe the "right wing" is defined a bit differently, less conservative, in New Zealand than it is in the U.S, no?

Currently the most right-wing of our four largest parties has majority-control of the government (in coalition with a couple of smaller parties), and is led by an guy who used to work as a currency trader for Merrill Lynch. That right-wing party is in a similar place on the global political spectrum to Obama/Hillary Clinton (according to politicalcompass.com who attempt to use the same scale for everyone, and also according to my own opinion). The leader of that party is a personal friend of Obama and enjoys playing golf with him, and overall the two of them appear to have very similar political views.

[Catholicity]

US DOES provide inexpensive housing to low income people. It also provides a myriad number of free shelters, though on a state by state level. It now provides free healthcare. As far as college, I honestly don't really know what's NOT free about it. I went to college essentially for free, and even attended when I was homeless. I just wasn't dumb enough to actually take any loans. The grants, tuition exemption programs and work programs were enough for me. I didn't pay a dime.

I went to college with grants and loans that we still owe on. I worked like crazy though. I probably would have qualified for free or cheap housing but it really wasn't safe. We kind of used the minimums and I provided the rest.
My husband now works for the post office and were really struggling through to pay off debts or come to a point where our debts have good agreements so we can be debt free. Is it easy? No, especially not when you only make what we make but its totally worth it. And we don't have a whole lot of assistance other than some insurance.

[seanD]

I went to college with grants and loans that we still owe on. I worked like crazy though. I probably would have qualified for free or cheap housing but it really wasn't safe. We kind of used the minimums and I provided the rest.
My husband now works for the post office and were really struggling through to pay off debts or come to a point where our debts have good agreements so we can be debt free. Is it easy? No, especially not when you only make what we make but its totally worth it. And we don't have a whole lot of assistance other than some insurance.

Personally, I think Obama's and Bernie's "college should be free to all" is a political sham just to appeal to the younger crowd. I'm not sure why they get away with it though since most people that attended college must at least be familiar with the myriad number of programs that government provides, whether they accepted those programs or not.

[lilpixieofterror]

You've obviously never visited an American Section 8 project. You'd see quite a few people who are content to have what little the Government will give them. And they will demand more from the government instead of themselves. Not all are like that, but a substantial amount are. You are right though. Changing their mentality is difficult.

Of course he hasn't because he ignores that the US has spent trillions of dollars on social welfare programs and yet the poor still exist at roughly the same levels as they did before these social welfare programs begun (around 7%). It's almost as if the poor will always exist and you can't get rid of the poor by pouring money at the problem and hoping it goes away.

[JimL]

Currently the most right-wing of our four largest parties has majority-control of the government (in coalition with a couple of smaller parties), and is led by an guy who used to work as a currency trader for Merrill Lynch. That right-wing party is in a similar place on the global political spectrum to Obama/Hillary Clinton (according to politicalcompass.com who attempt to use the same scale for everyone, and also according to my own opinion). The leader of that party is a personal friend of Obama and enjoys playing golf with him, and overall the two of them appear to have very similar political views.

Okay thanks. Thats about what I figured. But a follow up question. Being that your country already has a more progressive/liberal social policy than does the U.S, does the "right wing" try to roll them back at all?

[lilpixieofterror]

Personally, I think Obama's and Bernie's "college should be free to all" is a political sham just to appeal to the younger crowd. I'm not sure why they get away with it though since most people that attended college must at least be familiar with the myriad number of programs that government provides, whether they accepted those programs or not.

The only thing it will accomplish is turning college into the new high school where you'll need a college degree to get a job instead of merely a high school diploma. What is ignored is that college is not free to all in the rest of the world. Most places where government pays for college only pays for those who can do it to go while others do not. I'd have to agree with you here, it's just a way to buy votes and ignoring the consequences of what would happen (of course, more free government money is something colleges sure will not mind).

[Starlight]

Interestingly enough, most of these countries are allies of the US and the US spends billions defending them, so they don't have to defend themselves.

If the US spent much less on military, it is possible that some of these countries would choose to spend more, yes. Probably the US should therefore stop wasting so much of its taxpayer's money on military spending, and let other countries fend for themselves a bit more.

On that list, Iceland is the middle of the ocean, and has completely disbanded its military because there is no aggressive countries remotely close to it and no one in particular wants to invade it. New Zealand, like Iceland is in the middle of the ocean not near any aggressive countries and our military spending is fairly negligible (3% of total government spending). I personally think we should copy Iceland and disband the military entirely. The Netherlands, Switzerland, and Norway are possibly well-positioned to also think about doing the same.

Some of the other countries on the list are not so well-positioned in the world. Finland, Sweden, and Australia, are all close to unstable countries (Russia, Indonesia) that are worth having a decent level of military defense against. So their military spending is actually not all that low. But the amount of military spending you actually need to counter a threat is to have a level approximately similar to what that threat is spending. If you look at my chart on the fist page of this thread, you'll see that the UK and France combined are spending more than Russia is. By the time you combine the EU countries, they're spending nearly 4 times more per year on military than Russia. They don't need the US's over-the-top military spending protecting them. What they're already spending themselves is more than enough.

[Cow Poke]

If the US spent much less on military, it is possible that some of these countries would choose to spend more, yes.

"Choosing to" and being able to are two different things. And those countries being able to spend enough money on military to make any difference at all would be a whole 'nuther matter.


YOU NEED US ON THAT WALL!!!!!

[seanD]

If the US spent much less on military, it is possible that some of these countries would choose to spend more, yes. Probably the US should therefore stop wasting so much of its taxpayer's money on military spending, and let other countries fend for themselves a bit more.

On that list, Iceland is the middle of the ocean, and has completely disbanded its military because there is no aggressive countries remotely close to it and no one in particular wants to invade it. New Zealand, like Iceland is in the middle of the ocean not near any aggressive countries and our military spending is fairly negligible (3% of total government spending). I personally think we should copy Iceland and disband the military entirely. The Netherlands, Switzerland, and Norway are possibly well-positioned to also think about doing the same.

Some of the other countries on the list are not so well-positioned in the world. Finland, Sweden, and Australia, are all close to unstable countries (Russia, Indonesia) that are worth having a decent level of military defense against. So their military spending is actually not all that low. But the amount of military spending you actually need to counter a threat is to have a level approximately similar to what that threat is spending. If you look at my chart on the fist page of this thread, you'll see that the UK and France combined are spending more than Russia is. By the time you combine the EU countries, they're spending nearly 4 times more per year on military than Russia. They don't need the US's over-the-top military spending protecting them. What they're already spending themselves is more than enough.

Gotta protect that petrodollar, bro, which is what keeps our massive socialist system affloat lol.

[lilpixieofterror]

If the US spent much less on military, it is possible that some of these countries would choose to spend more, yes. Probably the US should therefore stop wasting so much of its taxpayer's money on military spending, and let other countries fend for themselves a bit more.

That would mean the end of of socialist paradise because your government would now have to pay to defend itself.

On that list, Iceland is the middle of the ocean, and has completely disbanded its military because there is no aggressive countries remotely close to it and no one in particular wants to invade it. New Zealand, like Iceland is in the middle of the ocean not near any aggressive countries and our military spending is fairly negligible (3% of total government spending). I personally think we should copy Iceland and disband the military entirely. The Netherlands, Switzerland, and Norway are possibly well-positioned to also think about doing the same.

Yes, they are so unwanted to be invaded that the UK invaded them during WWII to prevent Nazi Germany from doing so first. The Netherlands and Norway were also invaded during WWII as well and the only reason the Swiss were not invaded is because Hitler thought it would cost too much to invade them (IE the Swiss military is what kept the Nazi's from invading). You really need to grab yourself a history book there dimbulb and actually try reading it instead of ignoring the rest of history and pretending that it never happened and times will not change. Norway is a great place to control access at and so is the other countries you mentioned. Iceland is great for controlling the North Atlantic (after all, the US military is sending forces to Iceland after the base closings in the mid 2000's) and the Neatherlands is a place you run though on your way to France. See you really need to read your history and understand that today's nobody cares about places can turn into tomorrows everybody wants to be there. The Neatherlands, Norway, and Iceland are places that have recently been invaded and New Zealand was attacked during WWII (it is a good place to control the South Pacific from).

Some of the other countries on the list are not so well-positioned in the world. Finland, Sweden, and Australia, are all close to unstable countries (Russia, Indonesia) that are worth having a decent level of military defense against. So their military spending is actually not all that low. But the amount of military spending you actually need to counter a threat is to have a level approximately similar to what that threat is spending. If you look at my chart on the fist page of this thread, you'll see that the UK and France combined are spending more than Russia is. By the time you combine the EU countries, they're spending nearly 4 times more per year on military than Russia. They don't need the US's over-the-top military spending protecting them. What they're already spending themselves is more than enough.

And that must be why the UK and France are outranked in the Global Firepower Index by the US, China, Russia, and India, eh? The UK has recently drained down it's military power to levels it hasn't been to in over a century (since the First Boar War, as I recall). Being a member of the US military, I do keep up with this stuff since it is kind of important to remember. Most of Europe has massively downed it's military spending to well below 4% GDP because why spend all of this money when the US has extended it's friendly umbrella of military protection over you? You claim, "BUT THEY DON'T NEED IT!" and yet, isn't the bulk of NATO naval strength again made of mainly of the US Navy? Isn't the bulk of the NATO Air strength also the US military? I also thought that most of the NATO countries are using or going to be using US military hardware too (the C-17, the F-35, the F-16, the 135 airframe platform, etc are all stuff that most NATO countries use)? I also recall that before WWII, British/French military spending was slightly greater than German military spending, but as I recall... France was invaded and conquered and Brittan was under attack and had to face Germany almost alone. It's almost as if spending just over your adversary isn't a guarantee that you'll end up beating them... sounds like you need to look at actual facts vs what you want to believe dimbulb. Most of NATO is heavily reliant on US military strength and this is because you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

[lilpixieofterror]

"Choosing to" and being able to are two different things. And those countries being able to spend enough money on military to make any difference at all would be a whole 'nuther matter.

YOU NEED US ON THAT WALL!!!!!

And his socialist paradise would end up coming apart at the seams because it works great when others spend all this money to defend you. You would think that he would want the status que to continue, but I guess he'd rather cut off his own nose to spite his face instead. Likewise, getting rid of your military because 'nobody wants to invade you' is just silly. Norway, the Neatherlands, and Iceland were all invaded in the 20th century and New Zealand could have been one of Japan's targets if the war in the pacific turned out differently. Weird how history has to be ignored to make the dreams of socialism come true. More than likely, these people simply didn't talk to their grandparents or listened to them very well.