I feel sorry for USA - Capitalism: A Love Story (2009) Discussion

[–] priestpilot 14 years ago

I live in Canada, and I do feel sorry for the USA as well. I do also admire the Swedish system! It looks like you guys do your best for the people, as well as the environment! That is something to be proud of! Well actually every Swede I met so far are quite modest about this, which isn't a bad thing hehe!

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Vonzy 14 years ago

Please Don't cry over lots of immigrants!

We have more ppl from Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan in 1 (One) of the suburbs in Stockholm than the whole USA! and we are only 9 million living in Sweden.

You know nothing about the economic situation in EU at all!
You are using very old information

And nothing about Ireland either:
So Ireland is "sending" record-high immigrants to the US?
- Who are forcing them?
- Where did you get that information?

I'm glad that we still don't use € in Sweden (they don't use it in the UK either)

reply

[–] i-tietz-137-149361 10 years ago

They are forced out of the country because of the banks. They swallow the money and there's not enough left to care for the people. So they leave.
So do the Portuguese, the Spaniards, the Greeks, ...

That the Irish people go to the USA only shows that they are ill-informed about the US. They still think that will improve their situation ...

reply

[–] Mirabella29 14 years ago

You're both lucky. There are a lot of dumbasses here, people that shouldn't be Republicans are Republicans. They think the "trickle down" policy would work. Since when has the rich trickled down their fortunes to the poor? They're idiots to think tax breaks for the rich would benefit them.

President Obama is having a hard time fixing the economy. Who wouldn't? Bush sabotaged the people of the US for eight years.

reply

[–] neoultrix 14 years ago

Let see, Microsoft has 89,000 employees, all of them say... make a decent living with decent salary. These 89,000 people go out and buy grocery, grocery store employees benefit from the transaction. These 89,000 people go out and eat at a restaurant, waitresses and waiters benefit from the exchange. These 89,000 people go out and buy new pair of shoes, shoe makers around the world benefit. Of course, i am just making stuff up. Only rich millionaires work in grocery stores, restaurants and shoe factories.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] neoultrix 14 years ago

evanmang87 lost the debate when he can't even differentiate between free market capitalism and corporate socialism.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mtaylor55 14 years ago

So when you conservatives make these silly free-market arguments

My guess is that if you listened to these arguments as they were put forth by people like Adam Smith, Alfred Marshall, Milton Friedman, and dozens of other brilliant economists rather than the often not so wise words of news media personalities and imdb posters they might not seem so silly.

Also thus far any attempts at corporate deregulation has only boded well for the select few that does not include you, I or anyone posting here for that matter.

You might want to look at the economic history of the entire globe in the 20th century and reconsider that stance. You will find that you are overwhelmed by evidence of the contrary and that the stance you are taking is definitely outside of the mainstream economic understanding.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mtaylor55 14 years ago

Slow down there friend,

and that everything positive that has come has been by this invisible, natural force...a bit narrow sighted you libertarians are, no?

Where did I state this is my belief? Government can and does do a lot of good necessary things, so do non-government groups who are not acting in a market oriented way. It's pretty narrow sighted of you to lump me in with some category of people you have in your mind then proceed to argue with this caricature.

This argument of whether you are for or against this blanket term regulation is pointless and absurd. It is like looking at issues of crime and arguing either for prison or against prison. It gets you nowhere.

Especially when your man Smith did not state his model was the best or infallible. On the contrary he expressed concerns about his economic theories, noted its flaws and believed newer theories would evolve and come about to displace the old.

Where are you getting this idea that I am some blindheaded follower of Smith? I think you even to some degree recognize that if somebody says the results of completely free markets will be best on purely Smithian ground then they should probably go and look at what smith actually said.

The assertion "which is not to say he's irrelevant but to think in 2010 all the answers are the same as they were over 200 years ago" is not incorrect, but skirts the issue of actually understanding Smiths analysis on rational and scientific grounds in order to see how and where it applies.

Most of Smiths analysis provides a solid foundation that economic theory has built on, but it is not perfect. A very notable flaw in his model is the labor theory of value, which really provided the foundation that Karl Marx built his theories on even though other thinkers at the the time like John Stuart Mill had rationally demonstrated that it did not hold up. After that you had marginal utility thinkers like John Bates Clark come in and demonstrate mathematically as he puts it "where natural laws have their way, the share of income that attests to any productive function is gauged by the actual product of it. In other words, free competition tends to give to label what labor creates, to capitalists what capital creates, and to entrepreneurs what the coordinating function creates."

Oh really? Yes I never realized how benevolent corporations are and how big business deregulation is good for the world.

If you want examples look to the Democratically led deregulations of the United States in the 1970s, look to the "East Asian Tigers" starting in the 1970s, China's progression starting around the 1980s, or India starting in the 1990s. It has nothing to do with benevolent corporations.

"You might want to look at the economic history of the entire globe in the 20th century and reconsider that stance."

If you think we're going to suddenly completely embrace the free-market then you're the delusional one friend.

If you think that a sudden embrace of completely free markets is what mainstream economic understanding suggests then you are completely delusional.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mtaylor55 14 years ago

I think what you're basically suggesting is don't worry about the moral and ethical concerns of deregulation, as long as it can do in regards to prosperity what it has done for say, China, than just accept that model and make no effort to better or improve it? Why can't we make reconcile the contentment of workers with prosperity? Is that how limited we are? A very glum, defeatist outlook I say.

No no, that's what this caricature of me you have in your mind is saying. If you want my perspective, which I haven't really put forward yet, it would be that the goals of economic policy should be aimed achieving the prosperity and contentment of all the people in a society, but it order to do this you have to understand the natural economic forces that are driving people. A policy maker ignoring these natural economic forces is like an engineer ignoring physics. If you do not take into account these natural forces, then the policies you make, no matter how good their intentions are, will lead to greater overall suffering. This is the view of every economist I have ever heard speak. If you consider that to be an amoral view then so be it.

I also do think there will be some major labor movements in China in the coming decades so the idea of priotorizing profits over people can often be far more costly in the long run. The working-classes in most societies have proven many times not as ignorant or servile as expected and when they are wholly unsatisfied a lot of blood-shed and radicalism snd destabilization will occur. So even if you want to take a completely amoral view, the fact is logically the center will not hold if the circumstances become insufferable.

If you are talking about government policy aimed at prioritizing the profits of companies then yes, that would be seriously misguided. If your thinking about government policy aimed at prioritizing the productivity of companies then you are on the right track. Your best route for productivity will be having well educated and happy people and a large investment in capital and R&D. Doesn't sound too bad.

But you are missing my point: You wont get an understanding of economic issues by talking to idiots about it on imdb; There are books and courses that are made by people far more brilliant than you will find around here.

reply

[–] Vonzy 14 years ago

You have totally lost the subject :p

reply

[–] gabby_bm 14 years ago

Since socializing so many aspects of our economy, a free-market economy is a ridiculous dream.

Trickle-down economics is finite. Yes, it spreads out, but it doesn't elevate unless the management/CEO's WANT to elevate the lower-level economics. Yeah, fantastic that 300 million Americans want a Big Mac. Lots of people working at McDonald's. But that doesn't mean those profits translate to a greater economic power for those who work there, any more than our buying a crapload of purses are going to improve the paychecks of Bangladeshian purse-makers.

And I won't even go into the problematic job market which sees an increased population, yet a decrease in jobs due to outsourcing, automation, streamlining and of course EOE and the death of the single-income household.

That's right- if women had stayed in the home, there would be a shortage of workers which would have increased the demand and the pay would reflect that.
Unfortunately, we never figured out how to resolve these issues, and though trickle-down economics and the computer age helped for a little while, we haven't really fixed these problems as much as had a reprieve.
Well now that reprieve has ended and we're back to the 1970's, playing with our cellular pet rocks and playing 128-bit Pong games on our newfangled Atari game systems.

Is it time to get up, go to the window, throw up the sash and yell "I'm mad as hell- and I'm not going to take it anymore!"?

Aye. The haggis is in the fire for sure.

reply

[–] sammy45 9 years ago

Let see, Microsoft has 89,000 employees, all of them say... make a decent living with decent salary. These 89,000 people go out and buy grocery, grocery store employees benefit from the transaction.

You mean, grocery store owners benefit from the transaction

These 89,000 people go out and eat at a restaurant, waitresses and waiters benefit from the exchange.

You mean restaurant owners benefit from it, waitresses and waiters might benefit from the tips people give

These 89,000 people go out and buy new pair of shoes, shoe makers around the world benefit.

By shoe makers I guess you mean billionaires that set up their factories in poor countries to lower costs and pay shoe makers dollar per hour... and then their bosses cut the rate to 0,5 dollars an hour

Of course, i am just making stuff up. Only rich millionaires work in grocery stores, restaurants and shoe factories.

Only rich millionaires own these things and they pay workers as low salaries as they can, to profit more

reply

[–] Hammer_Smashed_Face 14 years ago

Since when has the rich trickled down their fortunes to the poor? They're idiots to think tax breaks for the rich would benefit them.

Since a very long time ago. The rich are actually responsible for much of the employment. Think about the thousands of people employed by big companies such as Microsoft or Google. Tax breaks have always lead to increased revenue due to the rich being able to invest, save and give more jobs. Sorry, you're another gullible victim of propaganda. Do your homework.

Furthermore, no matter how bad the economic situation gets, the impoverished tend not to let that affect the amount of children they have. Now even if you kind conservatives get your wet dream of eliminating welfare, food stamps etc. that still won't stop it either and then you'll have a situation where crime goes through the roof creating a growingly fearful, unstable, unsafe society requiring more cops on the streets which costs tax dollars. Now what's really
'fiscally conservative' then? Allowing the middle-class to shrink and letting the top 1% gobble up the vast majority of the pie? Or maybe a bit of- dare I say it- regulations and tax increases on the millionaires? A few corporate cats like your man Bill Gates actually have stated it is necessary and they'd be happy to pay more taxes because they can more than easily afford to.

I see. So your argument is to use taxpayer dollars to give to the poor so they won't commit crimes? Good thinking. You should run for office!

And your ideology allows you to apologize for corruption and abuses by private companies.

No, it doesn't. Libertarianism and conservatism do not ever make excuses for crimes. You're a real moron.

And I won't even go into the problematic job market which sees an increased population, yet a decrease in jobs due to outsourcing, automation, streamlining and of course EOE and the death of the single-income household.

Jobs are outsourced as a direct result of higher taxes, including higher corporate taxes. Want to keep jobs in the country? Make it so employers don't have to pay out of their a*ses to hire people! Try starting up a small business and see how much paperwork you'll have to fill out, then see how much taxes you'll have to pay for your employees.

Is it time to get up, go to the window, throw up the sash and yell "I'm mad as hell- and I'm not going to take it anymore!"?

Yes, that will solve EVERYTHING!

reply

[–] Vonzy 14 years ago

I'm sure it doesn't matter What ideas someone are typing here that will be in Your taste, so I made it easier for you and wrote it down

In Short - This Must Be Your Wet Dream:
That's because you are a True Capitalist = Give me lots in wages, and if I wants to run a company - allow me to give them $5/hour - Healthcare? Yes of course for us who can afford to pay for it - Schools? Are only for us who can afford it - Taxes? let those suckers with $5/hour pay the same as me.

A even shorter version: Give Me plenty of $$ and fu** the rest

Amen

With your all your money, I'm sure that you can afford a trip to Sweden,
sorry I forgot that you don't have 5-6 weeks payed vacation/year by law,,,but a few days should not be impossible for you

Everyone here are paying a very high tax, those who earn more, does of course pay more (in % ) but we got a very good economy, even if we have to feed +100.000 ppl that need food and somewhere to live, mainly from Iraq and Afghanistan and other places where its a war going on - and the Big Fool who started it in Iraq, we all know that cowboy-moron...

The schools are still free, even the University's and pre-school, healthcare are almost for free, and if you are sick, we got a public healthcare-insurance so you can live a normal life even if you can't work - even if it takes several years (or during the rest of your life).
And you don't need to pay extra if you are on a hospital during years
- Pension? yes it's included

I believe that Canada got almost the same system as we

I'm sure of that a word that you never heard about is SOLIDARITY - look it up - you EGOIST

If you are in need for a job, we probably have the best economy in EU, with many people that got a high education, and many companies are looking for even more.

Is That a coincident or have it something to do with our politic?

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Hammer_Smashed_Face 14 years ago

Actually, it was Bill Gates' DAD who wants him to pay more taxes. I know Warren Buffet said something about that. Don't know about Ted Turner.

What's funny though is your complete inability to counter any of my arguments. For every Warren Buffet, I can find 10 people who make $250k or higher who want to pay less taxes because they don't like the government taking so much of their money only to waste it on endless wars and bloated government. Seems socialists... I mean, "progressives", cannot make a decent argument for their redistribution of wealth nonsense. Doesn't work, hasn't worked, will never work.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Hammer_Smashed_Face 14 years ago

Obviously Gates' wealth is on a completely different plane of existence from a family man making $250K a year- we should really make an effort to redefine what rich means if we are going to raise taxes on the top "elite".

OK, I thought the Obama tax cuts applied to the $250k+ bracket -- but in any case, this is these are the tax brackets for last year:

http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

Notice $250k falls in the second highest tax bracket, where you pay a giant 33% of your income to the federal government.

Regardless, what Gates says doesn't change the facts, and you've yet to present any argument that does. Donald Trump is for the tax cuts and presents a much more credible argument:

http://www.moneynews.com/StreetTalk/donald-trump-obama-bush-tax-cuts/2 010/07/29/id/365987

Regardless of who's right -- Gates or Trump -- what I deduce from Gates saying he wouldn't mind or should pay more taxes is that he is that he wants to help the country's problems more. The man is well known for his philanthropy and modesty (doesn't "flaunt" his wealth like, say, big-name rappers do), and he conscientiously believes giving more of his money will help the economy, and doesn't mind parting with it since he's in the top 5 richest people in the world.. Despite being a successful businessmen, this doesn't necessarily mean he understands the economy's problems.

At the very least you should agree the tax-cuts are ludicrous and don't trickle down.

No, I shouldn't, because you're wrong.

I know libertarians who even agree Reagan and Bushs tax cuts were a failure, especially as they continued to increase federal spending while cutting taxes which is a sure recipe for disaster.

I'm really not interested in what certain libertarians believed because that has no impact on the credibility of my argument. A lot of people believed in the invasion of Iraq. A lot of people believe we need to keep policing "hostile" countries. A lot of people believe in Keynesian. This appeal to popularity doesn't interest me.

There was actually an interview or debate in which the interviewer or moderator asked Obama why he favored taxing the rich more in light of a study that showed tax cuts actually increased the GDP or created more wealth (whichever applied). I really wish I could bring up the video, but I can't remember the title of it. Perhaps you'll have better luck than me, but I assure you it exists.

In addition to this myth of tax cuts for the rich reducing wealth, it really comes down to two things:

1. wealth redistribution: Plenty of bleeding hearts (as well as pandering politicians -- like Obama) believe the wealthy arrived at the financial advantage they are at by some sort of luck, and that it's not "fair" they have more money than most people. Therefore, they think it's only "fair" that they take more from the rich than everyone else and "give" it to the lower classes. This is stupid on its face, and is a good road to less workable forms of economics and government...(cough) socialism....

2. a way to get around decreasing spending: You touched on this in your post, but there is way more to overspending than a gargantuan military. True, the military industrial complex plays one of the biggest factors in our debt, but there are plenty of other things, such as over-subsidizing (if "over-subsidizing" isn't redundant) and too many government jobs. People have, through incremental-ism, have come to think the government has a lot of responsibilities to us that amount to taking care of us. Some people even think it's the government's job to provide them a job and a home! Why weren't more people protesting the government's program to provide every American a home back several years ago? This directly and in part led to the housing crash! Back to my point, the government basically thinks that it's now the rich's responsibility to help pay off the debt and "contribute" more to the nation so they can keep avoiding cutting spending.

P.S. Democrats also "bang the drum" for increased defense spending....

I also want to say to whatev that his disgusting tirade against immigrants is the exact same mantra that's been used since the first Irish started arriving in this country. Illegal immigration is a problem yes but to say it is the main or greatest cause of our country's woes is nonsense and xenophobic, paranoid scape goating

What's disgusting about it? It's not at all comparable to the wave of Irish immigrants in that the vast majority of Irish immigrants came in legally. There were as many government services that used taxes. Furthermore, the 14th Amendment didn't kick in until after the Irish immigration wave started. This makes a big difference in that illegal immigrants in those days couldn't sneak in, have a kid and then know their chances of being granted citizenship would greatly improve since their kid became an automatic citizen.

In any case, no one that I know of is claiming illegal immigration is the biggest cause of this country's troubles.

Also, American-born citizens are statistically more likely to commit crimes than immigrants, legal or otherwise. Maybe it's you who needs to get out if you can't handle a multi-ethnic society.

Oh, right, because what I'm saying is "racist", huh? Yeah, how cliche. I guess you were against the Arizona anti-illegal immigration law? Maybe I'm not so much opposed to a "multi-ethnic society", which is actually what the U.S. is regardless of illegal immigration, as I am to people breaking the law. Did that silly little thought ever cross your mind? Probably not. Appealing to emotions is all you can come up with. Sorry, the race card is overplayed, and this is the perfect case in point. I couldn't give two sh*ts if the illegal immigrants were brown-skinned, Spanish-speaking Mexicans or pale-skinned, English-speaking Canadians. A key part to any country's sovereignty is secure borders, and something the Constitution actually states as one of the federal government's roles.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Hammer_Smashed_Face 14 years ago

Hammer- the point is the American people as a whole, including most who vote Republican or call themselves conservatives, have come to expect a lot of stuff and feel entitled to it.

That actually wasn't the point. It depends on what comment you're referring to I guess as I might have not read a few, but the OP certainly wasn't saying what you mentioned, and that certainly wasn't the point of what you were saying. Your comments had to do with taxation, the "trickle down" effect and illegal immigration.

Like I said, the idea that the rich deserved to get their pockets empty just because they're rich is absurd. I don't care how rich or how poor you are, paying 40% of your income to the government is an outrage. To put this in perspective, that means for every $10 you earn you only get to keep 6 of them, and that's BEFORE paying state taxes. Bill Gates seems to be well meaning, but being rich doesn't mean you understand the economy better necessarily.

As I was saying before, you should look up that clip where Obama is confronted with citing evidence that lower taxes lead to more economic growth, and he sh*ts himself, giving a typical politicians "answer" in response to the question.

I would, however, correct your assertion- many Irish DID arrive here illegally (perhaps even a majority in Boston in the mid to late 19th century) either via the Canadian border or through bribery of immigration workers which was way easier than the deadly passages illegals undertake today so the idea that it didnt happen or was impossible back then is a false belief.

I never said they didn't. However, the illegal immigration problem of the Irish isn't all too comparable for the reasons that they were FAR fewer in number, the 14th Amendment wasn't enacted until at LEAST halfway through the immigration wave and they weren't entitled to so many social services.

When confronted with the hypocrisy of their xenophobia many "ethnic" white Americans often retort, incorrectly, with a guarantee that their great great grandparents came over legally, assimilated quickly etc.

How do you know they're incorrect? There's no way you could know which of these "xenophobic", "ethnic" white Americans' grandparents/ancestors immigrated here illegally.

Ultimately it was all the same rhetoric we hear today but merely with different groups- Italians were lazy, the Irish were lacking in morals and having too many kids they couldn't pay for, Germans were the model immigrant group etc.

The main arguments against the illegal immigration wave aren't about the Mexicans being lazy, immoral or over-breeding. I don't know where you hear this stuff 'cause it certainly isn't what I'm hearing from people or even on the news. No, the main complaints against the illegal immigration wave has to do with them not putting money into the system and yet getting many social services, some of which legal citizens can't even get, the criminals that come over, the drug trafficking and the simple fact that a key to sovereignty is protected, secure borders. I've read about studies that show a disproportionate number of crimes are committed by illegals in illegal-"friendly" states such as California, including murder, DUI and rape. I don't get why anyone would defend illegal immigration. It's ILLEGAL. If it were such a good thing all these people are coming over ILLEGALLY, why even have a border, let alone bother even TRYING to protect it?

I don't think an illegal immigrant is some piece of sh*t bum who refuses to use contraception, but the claim that my argument against illegal immigration stems from racism is absurd.

reply

[–] marka99-1 14 years ago

Most rich folk want to live in areas that are safe, offer entertainment and have great education. Most of the upper class people I've spoken with want to share their wealth if it means a better world for their children and family. But no doubt some super rich want their's no matter who pays the price. They work hard GD and nobody should take their money! Of course it was taxing that made this country great after WW II but who cares about that? We're going down the toilet now, we're past the point of fiscal bankruptcy and the infrastructure is desperately in need of repair but GD nobody is taking my money! I remember this great line from the past that goes, "Ask not what you can do for country. Ask what you're country CAN DO FOR YOU!!!!!!!!" Learn it, live it, love it. It's the American way.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] grabacontroller-24-484153 13 years ago

I feel sorry for the U.S. too. That we live in a sorry excuse of a country. Prison for Profit and CPS Corruption. Look it up. My kids(babies were napped by the system for money). This is how sick this country is. I could move out if you don't like it? Ya. I could. Only if I had money. It costs $1,000 to get an ambulance ride for a few blocks. Do you think that our Airlines or any other transportation method is different? It's cheaper to get in the country than out.

reply

[–] Miki_The_Istari 11 years ago

Only 33% tax?:O I get payed $20K a year (part time because of studies), and pay a about 30% in taxes. Live in Norway, the highest tax bracket starts about $100K where you have to pay about 44% in taxes. Live in Norway, and our prisoners has better living conditions than people in old folks home.

Socialism is awesome, yeah right.

reply

[–] katnim 12 years ago

"Since a very long time ago. The rich are actually responsible for much of the employment. Think about the thousands of people employed by big companies such as Microsoft or Google. Tax breaks have always lead to increased revenue due to the rich being able to invest, save and give more jobs. Sorry, you're another gullible victim of propaganda. Do your homework. "

Since shareholder value took over these things got a little different. Not the founder of the company pays the wages but the shareholders, which, in most cases, are random rich people who are only interested in rising their dividends. Hence the drop in wages. Do you homework ;)

"Jobs are outsourced as a direct result of higher taxes, including higher corporate taxes. Want to keep jobs in the country? Make it so employers don't have to pay out of their a*ses to hire people! Try starting up a small business and see how much paperwork you'll have to fill out, then see how much taxes you'll have to pay for your employees. "

That's just BS! jobs are outsourced because of higher profit prospects. It's of course more proftibale to hire an Indian woman to work in your clothes factory 12 hours a day for 3 dollars, without healthcare,and in a country that doesn't care about abideing guidelines for environmental protection than in the US where the wages are higher. Funny how good the American conservative propaganda worked with you ;)

reply

[–] thecalciumbus 14 years ago

Vonzyse, you get free education and the like in Sweden? That's amazing! One question though: what do the teachers do for money if they don't receive a salary?

reply

[–] Vonzy 14 years ago

What??

Of course is all teachers getting a salary, where did you get that from?

The best things to be a teacher are 3:
June, July and August =)
(the kids + the teachers got a loong summer-holiday, from mid-June until mid-August)

The most schools are public, and some are private (it don't cost anyway)

The private schools gets the same amount as the public/pupil, from our Government, that now are lead by the right-wing, but they don't touch our benefits, as free education, almost free healthcare etc.
(around $15/visit, and nothing more if you need to stay on the hospital)

We got the highest taxes in the world, but we gets lots in return

reply

[–] gabby_bm 14 years ago

What makes it a "private school" if it's paid for out of public funds? I'm just curious as to what qualifies it as a private school.

Aye. The haggis is in the fire for sure.

reply

[–] Vonzy 14 years ago

Just as I wrote: They are Private, and can be owned by a company or a church, or a bunch of teachers that want's to have a school as they want it to be,
or a Montessori School http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montessori_method
and other kind of schools, even Muslims

Thanks to USA...:
In 2009 a report made a statement that there are 450 000 to 500 000 Muslims in Sweden, around 5% of the total population

All Private Schools have to fulfil the very same "School-plan", just as the public school, and if they don't, after having ignored a warning, they have to close down ,and the public schools gets a warning

So in the end it's not more expensive to allow this kind of private schools
Some of them are very popular, even if the public got a very high standard

Of course there are (very rare here) "Real Private Schools" mainly that kind where the students are living in the school.

reply

[–] Miki_The_Istari 11 years ago

If you pay taxes to get free education, the education is not free. That is the contradictory part.

reply

[–] whatever94401 14 years ago

OP and friends, can you get the word out about your feelings about the US? That way maybe people will listen and we will have less immigrants coming here illegally and a decrease in legal immigrants who hate our country (like the fellow in Oregon who just tried to murder Americans of all races at a tree lighting festival)

If we could stop the flood of these ungrateful people, maybe we can salvage the state of California and help our health care system, and give some jobs back to people who wouldn't work for less than minimum wage.

Please get the word out. We Americans know we are extremely fortunate to be living in this country, but some bad PR from outsiders might actually help us.

reply

[–] royu 14 years ago

aaahhhh thank you USA for stuffing up the world, we love you so much US, will you marry me?

reply

[–] Aidan_Mclaren 13 years ago

"Extremely Fortunate" = Brainwashing.

reply

[–] tomx1000 14 years ago

Considering the fact that most chronically homeless people are drug addicts or alcoholics of some type, you shouldn't feel that sorry for them (I live in Los Angeles, and every bum I see is obviously on some drug).

As for Europe being better off, clearly you have never been to Spain.

reply

[–] Anduin1 14 years ago

America is still the most economically powerful country in the world. Canada is nothing to look at for inspiration. Get raped up the ass with taxes I need to pay just because I make over a limit, yet I still need to buy additional health insurance because what I need isn't covered under the "regular" system. The poor in Canada are not doing much better than those in America.

reply

[–] Quanfa 14 years ago

I don't know, I guess there's always going to be unmotivated and motivated people. The motivated are going to do fine economically and the unmotivated probably won't, in any society. But there is an obsession with money in America that goes very deep - it's like a religion. People in America measure their happiness by what they can buy. And the worst part is the government is as bad as the people.

I notice a lot of people on this board are talking about Sweden and Canada. I just wonder if Americans lived in a country that didn't have the pressure of the global babysitter and refuge for the downtrodden, if the country were less multi-cultural so a sense of community could be derived from the country itself and not the racial pockets of people, I wonder if money would mean nearly as much. People might not fight so hard against freebies for the unmotivated or the unfortunate if they actually liked the citizens who made up that wing of the population.

I guess I'll feel sorry for America a little too until they can go the way of Britain and Rome - probably be replaced by China as the global top dog. Then everyone can immigrate to China when they can't fix their own homeland and then complain about by it's not more like home. Maybe China will do a better job at making everyone happy while enduring intense global scrutiny!

reply

[–] scottishjimmy 14 years ago

On reading the stuff about privitization of the colleges etc, just read in spectator that oxford may be the next to be privatized completely, the cost of a course going from 9000 to around up to 40000. *beep* nightmare - how is this going to help the underprivilidged get a better education - oxford uni said that they were committed to making the gap between rich and poor students better.

This doesn't apply to me though being from Scotland

reply

[–] CA_StateofMind 13 years ago

@scottishjimmy

The best thing that could ever happen to Oxford, Cambridge, or any state run educational institution in Britain or Scotland, is to be privatized. People are so disillusioned that the state runs everything the best. The biggest malinvestment and loss of utility is when the state controls and operates something. Just look at 1. the American educational system = broke and sinking further into indebtedness, 2. the United States Postal Service = extremely broke, more indebt everyday, should have been shut down 50 years ago, 3. Medicare and Medicaid = utter failure to socialize healthcare to the masses, insolvent 2 times over. And the British NHS isn't doing to hot as well, its multiple trust funds are heavily in debt.

And about this movie, the best Comedy of 2009. Did it win? Just the beginning alone is priceless.
Moore: "This is Capitalism. A system of taking and giving. Mostly taking."
Moore is so stupid. He's describing socialism and he doesnt even know it...or does he? You never know what that fat tub of lard has thought up in his little brain. Does he need to be schooled again by another real economist? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD0dmRJ0oWg

Moore, go fly your gulf stream up Obama's a**, you capitalist posing as a liberal douche.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mr_binks 12 years ago

Really? Our economy didn't have a credit crisis and fail like yours did. The poor in Canada can still get health care while being poor, unlike the average American who becomes poor because they got health care.

reply

[–] nielsb90 13 years ago

Unfortunately we also have a right wing government! It has taken a lot away from our country (I live in Denmark).. Schools, hospitals etc.. Makes me sick.. We're still well off but it could be better

reply

[–] vatechjedi 13 years ago

I live in USA and I feel sorry for many of the people here too.

Honestly... I do not see how this very young country is going to survive with the current course it's headed on.

France has had what... 6 constitutions? The US is still on our first.

The "founding fathers" of the US constitution never envisioned the top 1% controlling government, owning everything, and keeping the population uneducated from rising up against that 1% or voting against their in the pocket leaders.

reply

[–] Snickg78 13 years ago

There's only 70 homeless people in L.A.?

reply