Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
At least we agree on something. America has the lowest levels of social mobility in the OECD - in other words, a person born poor in America is much more likely to stay poor until the day they die, compared to somewhere like the Netherlands or Finland, where people have a greater chance of escaping poverty.
So much for 'hard work and innovation'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weatherguru
It depends where you live and your financial circumstances, if you are wealthy in America you are more likely to get value for your money. It is easier to become wealthy in America though.
False... see dunno's post. It was always a lie. Upward social mobility resulting from hard work and innovation is rare. And only a small percentage will ever be able to do so. An entire class of people cannot work their way out of poverty. The majority will always depend on the opportunities afforded to them and nothing more.
You've got to be kidding. Your polling data shows that Sanders wins with highschool dropouts and those lacking a college degree while losing among those with college or graduate level education. It also shows that Sanders wins with those making 50,000/year or less while losing to clinton among those making more...hence my generalization of "underearning and uneducated"
And remember, this is among only those who identify as Democrats...
You sound very elitist - why does it matter if Sanders does well with lower-earners? Their opinions are not worth less because they happen to earn less.
The rich - particularly in the US - tend to live self-contained lives, opting out of mainstream society, usually living in gated communities away from the plebs. They are oblivious to the hardships that many people face on a daily basis - so it doesn't surprise me that they're not concerned with the welfare of the poor, only caring about securing tax breaks for themselves.
The middle classes only care when they are also being shat on by those at the top - and maybe one day they'll wake up and smell the coffee as well. As America's middle class continues to shrink, will your typical suburban mom ferrying children to and from soccer practice come to the realisation that the American dream doesn't exist?
The "American Dream" may have existed in the 1950s, but now it's just a talking point for moronic American exceptionalists that think the US is the only country with "freedom".
You do have a point with the "freedom" thing. Anyone who harps about the freedom of the US as if it's the only free nation is idiotic
You sound very elitist - why does it matter if Sanders does well with lower-earners? Their opinions are not worth less because they happen to earn less.
The rich - particularly in the US - tend to live self-contained lives, opting out of mainstream society, usually living in gated communities away from the plebs. They are oblivious to the hardships that many people face on a daily basis - so it doesn't surprise me that they're not concerned with the welfare of the poor, only caring about securing tax breaks for themselves.
The middle classes only care when they are also being shat on by those at the top - and maybe one day they'll wake up and smell the coffee as well.
I like AJ, but he has a very limited perspective. He doesn't know what he's talking about.
The rich - particularly in the US - tend to live self-contained lives, opting out of mainstream society, usually living in gated communities away from the plebs. They are oblivious to the hardships that many people face on a daily basis - so it doesn't surprise me that
While I somewhat agree with your generalizations, why do you make statements like the bolded without even checking stats and not having visiting the US? The majority of the affluent don't live in gated communities, unless you mean the very rich. It also depends on the region.
How long did you live in Toronto; you could get a vague idea of American culture from living in Canada.
===============================
In any case, it's not surprising that a left-leaning candidate on economic issues would do better among lower incomes; people do vote partly vote on interes
You "Don't see the problem"? Well, firstly, his policies are fiscally moronic, there's no feasable way to even come close to funding the programs he touts as the core of his campaign, he refuses to work with republicans, and even moderate democrats, which by the way means that none of his proposals will get through a republican controlled congress. The main voting base of his campaign consists of the uneducated and unemployed who are simply seeking handouts from the government and students who didn't work for a scholarship and don't want to pay for college the same as every single ****ing american before them. He donated to the communist party of america in the 1980's and wrote letters of support to multiple socialist leaders during the same time period. Some people claim that, as you said, most other developed countries have adopted policies which are indeed more "left" than those of the United States. However, these same countries have much smaller populations than that of the United States and also don't have the burden of maintaining global security. It also must be noted that the per-capita income in the United States is much higher than that of described countries BEFORE taxes which in these countries top 60%. The economy here is much healthier as well due to the atmosphere more conducive to small business development. In summation, Bernie Sanders is a clear socialist who seeks to destroy what made the United States the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world, it's my opinion that it is imperative that we don't let the laziness and listlessness so prevelent in America today (See Bernie Sanders policies) end the magic of the Anerican Dream.
*I agree with you that Cruz is a regressive evangelical who, aside from Sanders is the worst remaining candidate. He denies evolution for ****s sake
Ok, I'll give a genuine reply then.
Sanders' policies are not fiscally moronic, they have been implemented in every single other Western European country, big or small. Also in Canada. Yes, it means higher taxes, yes, it means redistribution of wealth. So what? Because the average American wins. You win. Your parents win. Your children win. It's the 1 percenters, 2, 3, 4, 5 percenters who lose. The Nordic Model Sanders strives for works like this here: when you are born you're a net reciever. When you finish school you're a net contributor, and finally when you retire you're again a net reciever. Everybody loses some, everybody gains some.
His voting base is not mainly from 'lazy work-evaders', a mostly mythical group of people which is so insignitifically small in the US, just like it is in Finland, Sweden, Germany, France, Spain and all the other countries. Sanders' supporters are what I've heard young educated adults who are caught up in a globalised world, and my generation (I turned 34 on Tuesday) will most likely be the first one in over 150 years who generate a less net worth than our parents did. That is groundbreaking, and Sanders supporters want to redistribute the wealth.
It doesn't matter if the US is bigger than Finland. Why would it? More people, more GDP, what's the problem? A Ford Fiesta is a car, a Hummer is a car. Both works in the same way.
The US is not "mantaining global security". That's purely brainwashing from the military-industrial complex. Sure, the US is pivotal in the defence of South Korea and Taiwan, but it's keeping up an arms race against an imaginary enemy that doesn't exist. It's like a heavyweight boxer taking growth hormones just in case when against a lightweight boxer. The US military is already a huge overkill against any imaginary or real threat.
The income in the US per capita is higher than in most developed countries, that is true. That's because of the lower taxes, BUT in other countries the taxes comes back to you in the form of benefits. For example paid maternal leave and better infrastructure. And obviously better overall security. In fact, a poor Finn has actually a lower tax rate while having better social security than a poor American.
About business, Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland are in the top 10 in the easiness of doing business index, despite having a social free market policy. Social policies does not mean that economies would be hampered. For example Germany is Europe's economical powerhouse despite all this.
Sanders is not out to destroy anything. The US didn't become the wealthiest country in the world because of revolutionary politics. It did so due to splendid innovation and immigration, while Europeans decided to destroy each other in two world wars. FDR was quite on the same line as Sanders, and the US emerged from WWII richer than ever. And in 1940 the US Army was as powerful as the Portuguese army. How about that?
The American Dream is as real as the tooth fairy. It an abstract definition which doesn't exist. The US ranks on the very low end in social mobility among the OECD countries. If you're a poor American you are much less likely to rise to the middle class than if you're a poor Finn.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
