What Americans Don’t Get About Nordic Countries

[Kutnupe14]

The government wasn't granted the power to redistribute wealth. It just does it with the courts' permission.

It indeed has allowed vast amounts of tyranny. And it was amended to remedie. If the people want to renounce the individualism encoded in the constitution they need to change it to encode collectivism.

Isn't that what I said?

 

[Route 45]

Who's anti-Nordic model? That's crazy.

Get this thread off track again ... God Bless the U.S.A

I prefer the Nordic model.

Sorry.

 

[Route 45]

If you really want to see how these countries manage such awesome safety nets, look no further than immigrants. These countries are well known for bringing in migrants when the economy is up, taxing them like natives, then immediately deporting them when the economy goes down and job loss occurs. This "fairness" is largely funded by screwing migrants.

Example:Foreign workers told to go home

I don't see a problem with this.

 

[jamil]

I'll ask a simple question. Does socialism, in ANY form exist in the Constitution?

Kut (sees the dodge coming)

No dodge. To say that any elements of common public services, common defense, etcetera, is somehow constitutional permission for any or every whim's worth of socialism that 50% + 1 percent can concoct is utterly absurd. The ideas of socialism existed at the framing of the constitution. They chose a different way. If you want something different you should have to make the constitution say so

 

[Kutnupe14]

No dodge. To say that any elements of common public services, common defense, etcetera, is somehow constitutional permission for any or every whim's worth of socialism that 50% + 1 percent can concoct is utterly absurd. The ideas of socialism existed at the framing of the constitution. They chose a different way. If you want something different you should have to make the constitution say so

Call it absurd if you want, but if govt takes my money, and I have no say in where it goes, that's socialism. /of story

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I'll ask a simple question. Does socialism, in ANY form exist in the Constitution?

Kut (sees the dodge coming)

No dodge. To say that any elements of common public services, common defense, etcetera, is somehow constitutional permission for any or every whim's worth of socialism that 50% + 1 percent can concoct is utterly absurd. The ideas of socialism existed at the framing of the constitution. They chose a different way. If you want something different you should have to make the constitution say so

I'm thinking the US Constitution left open the option of the states to have more socialist forms of government. But it did not allow for it, nationally. The welfare clause and language like the common defense is not socialism.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Call it absurd if you want, but if govt takes my money, and I have no say in where it goes, that's socialism. /of story

That's not necessarily true. None of us has a say on where every dollar goes but that's socialism. Socialism, as an economic and public policy concept has a definition and you having to pay taxes for Eagle Creek Pistol Range (or whatever) is not it.

 

[Route 45]

Call it absurd if you want, but if govt takes my money, and I have no say in where it goes, that's socialism. /of story

What is it called when the government stops me on the highway and forcibly takes my money at gunpoint?

Let me guess....."public safety."

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I don't see a problem with this.

Well, let's put it in local terms.

Say you come to Indiana from Tennessee and work for 10 years, paying all the same taxes as a native. Your friend comes to Indiana from Kentucky and works for 10 years, paying all the same taxes as a native. Then you lose your jobs because corn prices go down. The native and the Kentuckian get unemployment. You are not eligible because your state does not border Indiana. You get deported, so instead of having time to look for another job you must sell your house, car, etc.

Now, you may not see an issue with that. However people who are using Norway and the like as a model of how workers should be treated, the awesome social safety net, etc. tend to leave out the fact that there are three classes of workers. They all do the same work and pay the same taxes, but one gets most of the social safety net, the second gets limited use, and the third is allowed to fall. The model is artificially sustainable because #3 pays to prop it up but doesn't get to enjoy the reward.

 

[Kutnupe14]

What is it called when the government stops me on the highway and forcibly takes my money at gunpoint?

Let me guess....."public safety."

You mean at a toll road?

 

[jamil]

Isn't that what I said?

That's not what I got out of what you said. You seemed to think all it requires is electing people willing to take stuff from the people who earned it and give to the people who didn't. In reality that happens, but only because we've allowed people in black robes define the law to be whatever they want. That's why elections have become so much about who gets to fill the courts with their own ideologues.

 

[OakRiver]

No dodge. To say that any elements of common public services, common defense, etcetera, is somehow constitutional permission for any or every whim's worth of socialism that 50% + 1 percent can concoct is utterly absurd. The ideas of socialism existed at the framing of the constitution. They chose a different way. If you want something different you should have to make the constitution say so

It is also the same mentality that views the Constitution as giving them a right to feel safe.

 

[OakRiver]

Call it absurd if you want, but if govt takes my money, and I have no say in where it goes, that's socialism. /of story

It is absurd, especially when you consider the common definition of socialism is a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

 

[Route 45]

You mean at a toll road?

No. More like a roadside chat with a highway tax collector.

 

[Kutnupe14]

That's not necessarily true. None of us has a say on where every dollar goes but that's socialism. Socialism, as an economic and public policy concept has a definition and you having to pay taxes for Eagle Creek Pistol Range (or whatever) is not it.

It's IS completely socialism, because I don't have the ability to opt out of it. The 16th and 18th Amendment (income tax and prohibition), both legally passed introduced widespread socialism into the country. Taxation, on that scale is most assuredly socialism.

 

[jamil]

Call it absurd if you want, but if govt takes my money, and I have no say in where it goes, that's socialism. /of story

You can believe that the definition of "goat" is an amphibious reptile with a hard shell if you want. But we write down definitions of words in books so we can all accept a common definition. You don't HAVE to accept it. You can be wrong if you want.

 

[Kutnupe14]

No. More like a roadside chat with a highway tax collector.

Oh, well that's a voluntary tax that you can easily opt out of.

 

[Route 45]

Well, let's put it in local terms.

Say you come to Indiana from Tennessee and work for 10 years, paying all the same taxes as a native. Your friend comes to Indiana from Kentucky and works for 10 years, paying all the same taxes as a native. Then you lose your jobs because corn prices go down. The native and the Kentuckian get unemployment. You are not eligible because your state does not border Indiana. You get deported, so instead of having time to look for another job you must sell your house, car, etc.

Now, you may not see an issue with that. However people who are using Norway and the like as a model of how workers should be treated, the awesome social safety net, etc. tend to leave out the fact that there are three classes of workers. They all do the same work and pay the same taxes, but one gets most of the social safety net, the second gets limited use, and the third is allowed to fall. The model is artificially sustainable because #3 pays to prop it up but doesn't get to enjoy the reward.

Except that someone who goes to another state to work is not a foreign immigrant, and cannot be deported.
I had to read your post 3 times to see if you were actually making a point....but to compare someone in the same country moving to a different state with a nation taking in foreign workers?

I'm pretty sure that Indiana and Tennessee are both in the same country. Different views on marrying your cousin, perhaps, but still the same country.

 

[Route 45]

Oh, well that's a voluntary tax that you can easily opt out of.

Depending solely on the honesty of said road tax collector, who may or may not be under pressure to meet "performance goals."

 

[Kutnupe14]

You can believe that the definition of "goat" is an amphibious reptile with a hard shell if you want. But we write down definitions of words in books so we can all accept a common definition. You don't HAVE to accept it. You can be wrong if you want.

There isn't one definition for socialism. There are a variety of forms. And for the sake of argument, I'm speaking of the form Sanders is a proponent of.... which already exists on a smaller scale.