.
[quote]Drew1411 wrote:
[quote]ozzyaaron wrote:
Also even if you take it to the logical conclusion of state ownership of everything I’m not sure how that is anti freedom?
[/quote]
Not sure if you are trolling or are actually serious. If the state owns everything including your personal property and income, you own nothing and are not free to use anything outside of the permission of the state. You are at the mercy of the state. There is nothing free about it, hence, anti-freedom.
Edit: add first sentence[/quote]
Everything was probably too inclusive. I didn’t mean your home, car, etc. As far as I know no modern socialist type society does that. Generally I’m speaking about resources, shared infrastructure and productive sources.
Personally I believe the government should have a large stake in health, education, policing, welfare and a few other things but wouldn’t be in favor of them owning a GM, Intel or Chase. In these cases I think properly funded and realistic regulation is best.
I can absolutely see if the government owned everything that would reduce freedom but I think if the government supplies the items above that can increase peoples’ freedom as they have a safety net and can aim higher.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]ozzyaaron wrote:
I can’t reply to everyone individually but lets be honest here the ‘facts’ quoted about Australia vs USA are wrong. [/quote]
[/quote]
That only re-inforced the point I conceded. Cheers
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]ozzyaaron wrote:
I can’t reply to everyone individually but lets be honest here the ‘facts’ quoted about Australia vs USA are wrong…has a roughly equal rape rate… [/quote]
http://www.civitas.org.uk/crime/crime_stats_oecdjan2012.pdf
Looks equal…[/quote]
Lets compare
Rape classification varies massively. A little digging shows the figure you’re reporting as sexual assault (I think) as it matched the Australia Bureau of Stats sexual assault rate for that year.
We could also talk about the homicide rate. I’m not sure that these figure too much into the economy, socialism, etc though?
[quote]ozzyaaron wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]ozzyaaron wrote:
I can’t reply to everyone individually but lets be honest here the ‘facts’ quoted about Australia vs USA are wrong…has a roughly equal rape rate… [/quote]
http://www.civitas.org.uk/crime/crime_stats_oecdjan2012.pdf
Looks equal…[/quote]
Lets compare
Rape classification varies massively. A little digging shows the figure you’re reporting as sexual assault (I think) as it matched the Australia Bureau of Stats sexual assault rate for that year.
We could also talk about the homicide rate. I’m not sure that these figure too much into the economy, socialism, etc though?
[/quote]
Or we could use a third party like the UN.
It was about what I expected. I lost all respect for Bernie Sanders when he defended Hillary Clinton. She did something highly illegal with her email service and under normal circumstances it would have ended her candidacy long ago. It is a huge liability for her campaign and there is no gain for Sanders in helping her minimize that liability. It’s like Sanders really isn’t interested in winning, he’s just there to put on a good show then lose to Hillary, just like McCain and Romney did for Obama.
None of them challenged Bernie when he started spewing that ridiculous black lives matter bullshit. He didn’t get challenged on his stupid free college idea or his stupid raise the minimum wage idea.
The best part of it is Hillary got a pass on everything. She won’t get that luxury in a debate against Trump and he will shred her.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
The best part of it is Hillary got a pass on everything. She won’t get that luxury in a debate against Trump and he will shred her. [/quote]
Yeah, because he is a master debater…
[quote]ozzyaaron wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]ozzyaaron wrote:
I can’t reply to everyone individually but lets be honest here the ‘facts’ quoted about Australia vs USA are wrong. [/quote]
[/quote]
That only re-inforced the point I conceded. Cheers
[/quote]
Huh?
http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/income/
Household net-adjusted disposable income is the amount of money that a household earns, or gains, each year after taxes and transfers. It represents the money available to a household for spending on goods or services.
Household disposable income includes income from economic activity (wages and salaries; profits of self-employed business owners), property income (dividends, interests and rents), social benefits in cash (retirement pensions, unemployment benefits, family allowances, basic income support, etc.), and social transfers in kind (goods and services such as health care, education and housing, received either free of charge or at reduced prices). Across the OECD, the average household net-adjusted disposable income per capita is USD 25 908 a year.
Household financial wealth
Household financial wealth is the total value of a householdâ??s financial worth, or the sum of their overall financial assets minus liabilities. Financial wealth takes into account: savings, monetary gold, currency and deposits, stocks, securities and loans. These financial assets can provide an important source of revenue on their own; either through their sale or refinancing, via pensions, via interest and dividend payments, or other property income. Ideally, measures of household wealth should also include non-financial assets (e.g. land and dwellings), but such information is currently available for only a small number of OECD countries, and is not included here.
Financial wealth makes up an important part of a householdâ??s economic resources, and can protect from economic hardship and vulnerability. For example, a low-income household having above-average wealth will be better off than a low-income household with no wealth at all. Across the OECD, the average household net financial wealth per capita is estimated at USD 67 139.
Australia:
the average household net-adjusted disposable income per capita is USD 31 588 a year, higher than the OECD average of USD 25 908.
the average household net financial wealth per capita is estimated at USD 47 657, lower than the OECD average of USD 67 139.
USA:
the average household net-adjusted disposable income per capita is USD 41 355 a year, higher than the OECD average of USD 25 908.
the average household net financial wealth per capita is estimated at USD 145 769, much higher than the OECD average of USD 67 139
[quote]ozzyaaron wrote:
Personally I believe the government should have a large stake in health,
[/quote]
They already do.
[quote]
education, [/quote]
They already do.
[quote]
policing,[/quote]
They already do.
They already do.
[quote]
and a few other things [/quote]
They already are…
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]ozzyaaron wrote:
Personally I believe the government should have a large stake in health,
[/quote]
They already do.
[quote]
education, [/quote]
They already do.
[quote]
policing,[/quote]
They already do.
They already do.
[quote]
and a few other things [/quote]
They already are…[/quote]
This is in billions.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
What a nightmare. Bernie with his Santa bag tossing out free stuff. Free college! Free! In-state tuition (i.e. American-taxpayer-subsidized tuition) for the children of illegal immigrants!
From a semi-objective perspective, Hillary won easily and did better than expected. She did well on foreign policy questions. Anybody who thinks she doesn’t have a chance needs to take her more seriously.[/quote]
No she didn’t win. She got a pass because none of her opponents had the balls to challenge her.
You are out of your mind if you think she is strong on foreign policy. She clearly demonstrated EXTREME weakness with her story about how she and Obama had to chase down the Chinese at a conference and beg them to talk to them. Let’s get something straight about our relationship with China. China needs us, we don’t need China. Upon hearing the US President or Secretary of State wanted to talk to them they should have come running to him with their Mao hats in hand.
Conspiracy bullshit…
[quote]Sifu wrote:
It’s like Sanders really isn’t interested in winning, he’s just there to put on a good show then lose to Hillary, just like McCain and Romney did for Obama.[/quote]
…followed by…
[quote]
The best part of it is Hillary got a pass on everything. She won’t get that luxury in a debate against Trump and he will shred her. [/quote]
Yup. Checks out.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
What a nightmare. Bernie with his Santa bag tossing out free stuff. Free college! Free! In-state tuition (i.e. American-taxpayer-subsidized tuition) for the children of illegal immigrants!
From a semi-objective perspective, Hillary won easily and did better than expected. She did well on foreign policy questions. Anybody who thinks she doesn’t have a chance needs to take her more seriously.[/quote]
No she didn’t win. She got a pass because none of her opponents had the balls to challenge her. [/quote]
No, the Cowboys didn’t win. They got a pass because Eli Manning and his coaching staff can’t manage the clock. Wait…
In other news:
[quote]
You are out of your mind if you think she is strong on foreign policy. She clearly demonstrated EXTREME weakness with her story about how she and Obama had to chase down the Chinese at a conference and beg them to talk to them. Let’s get something straight about our relationship with China. China needs us, we don’t need China. Upon hearing the US President or Secretary of State wanted to talk to them they should have come running to him with their Mao hats in hand. [/quote]
Real policy substance here. I’m sure Donald will meet your expectations by telling us stories about the apartments he’s sold to Chinese people. Because that’s how we judge a candidate’s foreign policy – we compare and contrast their anecdotes about Chinamen.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
The touchy feely hippy dippy dismissal of her email scandal and the subsequent complete lack of follow up by the moderator was just nauseating, and something that would be red meat for any capable Republican debater if she actually gets to the point of debating with a Republican (and I rather think she will). I would LOVE to see her try to use the same dismissive line outside of this sort of forum.
This IS an important issue. Hugely important. All politics aside. [/quote]
It is a hugely important issue. The first Benghazi committee subpoenaed her emails and she never even revealed their existence. According to Trey Gowdy that first subpoena from the first committee is still in effect. So we know she committed destruction of evidence which is a crime.
It shows how she would govern as President. Laws and rules have absolutely no meaning to her, not the spirit nor the intent. Unless she is expressly forbidden from doing something and gets caught in the act, she will try to get away with pulling shady shit.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]ozzyaaron wrote:
Personally I believe the government should have a large stake in health,
[/quote]
They already do.
[quote]
education, [/quote]
They already do.
[quote]
policing,[/quote]
They already do.
They already do.
[quote]
and a few other things [/quote]
They already are…[/quote]
Sorry by stake I meant by actually either regulating to a reasonable price or curriculum or standard and then paying that price, or by actually running services. I don’t know but isn’t the largest source of bankruptcy still healthcare costs? At which point who covers the bill? Honestly I don’t know so it would be good to know.
Health is very very obviously an industry that needs either a government competitor or deep regulation. I mean honestly, you guys (and now me) are just subsidising my friends back in Australia (and every other country) for the drugs you buy here.
Education seems to be pretty crazy here too. Talking with vet officers about how those online universities screw their guys over is really sad. These especially should probably be reformed or shut.
Long story short that was more what I meant. Throwing money at industries without any controls is kind of ridiculous. I realise there are controls and guidelines and regulators but they’re obviously underfunded and lack resources. John Oliver just covered the oil industry in ND.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]ozzyaaron wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]ozzyaaron wrote:
I can’t reply to everyone individually but lets be honest here the ‘facts’ quoted about Australia vs USA are wrong…has a roughly equal rape rate… [/quote]
http://www.civitas.org.uk/crime/crime_stats_oecdjan2012.pdf
Looks equal…[/quote]
Lets compare
Rape classification varies massively. A little digging shows the figure you’re reporting as sexual assault (I think) as it matched the Australia Bureau of Stats sexual assault rate for that year.
We could also talk about the homicide rate. I’m not sure that these figure too much into the economy, socialism, etc though?
[/quote]
Or we could use a third party like the UN.
[/quote]
Still doesn’t matter. However definitely seems Australians love raping which is really not great at all.
Australian also has big problems in drinking culture, domestic violence, housing affordability and so many other areas.
I’m not at all saying Australia > America. Just saying there are lessons both countries can learn from each other. Its part of the reason I wanted to work here 
[quote]Sifu wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
The touchy feely hippy dippy dismissal of her email scandal and the subsequent complete lack of follow up by the moderator was just nauseating, and something that would be red meat for any capable Republican debater if she actually gets to the point of debating with a Republican (and I rather think she will). I would LOVE to see her try to use the same dismissive line outside of this sort of forum.
This IS an important issue. Hugely important. All politics aside. [/quote]
It is a hugely important issue. The first Benghazi committee subpoenaed her emails and she never even revealed their existence. According to Trey Gowdy that first subpoena from the first committee is still in effect. So we know she committed destruction of evidence which is a crime.
It shows how she would govern as President. Laws and rules have absolutely no meaning to her, not the spirit nor the intent. Unless she is expressly forbidden from doing something and gets caught in the act, she will try to get away with pulling shady shit. [/quote]
Totally agree. There is no way in the last decade that a C level employee would’ve been allowed to self host their company email. To me it’s as simple as that. She’s either dumb or a liar. I think its the latter.
[quote]ozzyaaron wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]ozzyaaron wrote:
Personally I believe the government should have a large stake in health,
[/quote]
They already do.
[quote]
education, [/quote]
They already do.
[quote]
policing,[/quote]
They already do.
They already do.
[quote]
and a few other things [/quote]
They already are…[/quote]
Sorry by stake I meant by actually either regulating to a reasonable price or curriculum or standard and then paying that price, or by actually running services. I don’t know but isn’t the largest source of bankruptcy still healthcare costs? At which point who covers the bill? Honestly I don’t know so it would be good to know.
Health is very very obviously an industry that needs either a government competitor or deep regulation. I mean honestly, you guys (and now me) are just subsidising my friends back in Australia (and every other country) for the drugs you buy here.
Education seems to be pretty crazy here too. Talking with vet officers about how those online universities screw their guys over is really sad. These especially should probably be reformed or shut.
Long story short that was more what I meant. Throwing money at industries without any controls is kind of ridiculous. I realise there are controls and guidelines and regulators but they’re obviously underfunded and lack resources. John Oliver just covered the oil industry in ND. [/quote]
Well, in the US anyway, you are free to your opinion. I prefer more freedom over less. The government, imo, gets about 3 things right and education, healthcare, and regulation in general are not among them.
[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
[quote]Sifu wrote:
The best part of it is Hillary got a pass on everything. She won’t get that luxury in a debate against Trump and he will shred her. [/quote]
Yeah, because he is a master debater…[/quote]
No. His ability to debate has nothing to do with it. He will shred her because he has a lifetime of experience operating at the highest level in the business world. In the business world results and the ability to get results matters. It is the polar opposite of the world of politics where Hillary comes from.
The business world is a very unforgiving environment. You cannot bullshit your way through the business world and be a success like Trump has been. For that same reason in business you cannot be hopeless fuck up like Hillary and get by on making excuses for incompetence like Hillary.
What Trump is doing to the political process is he has turned it into something much more like the interview and selection process for CEO of a major multi billion dollar corporation.
He has turned this into something resembling the apprentice. Project managers who could not cut the mustard got fired. Except in this situation they have to justify why they should even be given the chance to be project manager.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Conspiracy bullshit…
[quote]Sifu wrote:
It’s like Sanders really isn’t interested in winning, he’s just there to put on a good show then lose to Hillary, just like McCain and Romney did for Obama.[/quote]
…followed by…
Hillary has clearly broken the law. It is a huge liability for her that has put Sanders ahead of her on some polls. If he really wanted the nomination all he had to do is sat back, shut the fuck up and think to himself, you made that bed bitch, now lie in it and she would have taken a huge hit right there and then.
I can guarantee that if Trump or Fiorina were in that debate they wouldn’t have rescued her, because they are trying to win. Sanders threw his golden opportunity to win the debate for no good reason. He did this in front of everyone, on national tv.
Me pointing out suspect behavior that you cannot give an explanation for does not make me a conspiracy theorist, so go fuck yourself.