Quote:

Scandinavian countries arn't economically competitive.  They are rich because of oil.  Like Kuwait.  They inherited their wealth, they didnt earn it.  Everybody wants to inherent wealth.  Unfortunately that's just not an option for a continent wide nation of 300 million.

---

Quote:

There will always be poverty no matter how much welfare you throw into the system. The fittest will survive

Also funny how poverty levels actually rose with the "great society" programs that were supposed to stop it.

---

Quote:

Liberalism seeks to level the playing field by bringing some of these advantages to the poor.

---

Its for society's own good.  Someone who is healthy is more likely to be employed, and more productive than someone bogged down by illness gone chronic because they cant afford to see a doctor.

If someone with treatment resistant TB goes to the doctor he gets quarantined and cured as fast as possible.  A ghettodweller with TB cantr afford a doctor so will infect hundreds of people before finally making it to a free clinic.

Take it from me, people in the first and second world are looking in horrified amazement at your unwillingness to help your less fortunate countrymen. Its not communist or fascist its having a fucking heart you morons

KENYA can find the funds to have near free health care, near free public transportation and near free education. Its called prioritizing.

Anonymous #1 said:

Anonymous #9 said:

Anonymous #1 said:

Anonymous #9 said:

Most wealth is generational as is poverty.  Seems that there are many circumstances beyond an individual's control that contribute to being rich or poor.  Liberalism seeks to level the playing field.  The best trick libertarians and conservatives have played on the middle class is that middle class interests lie with the rich.  They do a great job of that bullshit too because they are so damn well funded and skillfully villainize the poor - as if poor people are the problem.  Hard work?  Trade places with a manual laborer or be a banking executive.  Which one is the hard, honest worker?

---

Not only does being a banking executive make more money but it is also more difficult...manual labor sucks but it doesn't require the knowledge/training that executive banking/ programming / engineering/ etc... does

---

Are poor people lazy and deserving of poverty?  Are bankers and executives hard-working and deserving of millions?

---

Poor people will typically be lazier than the wealthier. And yes, bankers and executives are hard working and deserve every penny they make. This is another problem I have with liberals. You guys think the government should be deciding how much these people make. Let the free market handle it.

Big bankers/exec's didn't just find an ad on craigslist one day saying "looking for CEO, no exp. required". They worked their way up the ladder. jesus christ.

---

Anonymous #20 said:

Quote:

Scandinavian countries arn't economically competitive.  They are rich because of oil.  Like Kuwait.  They inherited their wealth, they didnt earn it.  Everybody wants to inherent wealth.  Unfortunately that's just not an option for a continent wide nation of 300 million.

---

Say the guys living on the HANDOUT of owning the world's reserve currency and printing dollars out the ass to live a leisure life on our earnings.

You guys wouldnt be ANYWHERE without being the world's reserve currency, America was once a great nation, then it got complacent and stopped putting effort in being great. Instead of defeat the competition by work better and harder you wage wars for gain.

This is going to end. Everybody is getting out of Dollars these days.

---

Anonymous #1 said:

Liberals have good intentions but by getting the government involved they only make things worse

---

Anonymous #1 said:

Fuck minimum wage

---

Anonymous #9 said:

Anonymous #1 said:

Fuck minimum wage

---

Let the market decide!  What would that look like?  Millions of people currently earning minimum wage and not making ends meet will become millions of people even worse off.  Will corporations and businesses pass their savings on to the consumer in the form of lower priced goods and services?  Or will money get further funneled into the hands of the wealthy few and make the rich richer and the poor poorer?

---

Anonymous #9 said:

One trip to a well-funded public school in a rich neighborhood will show you that government involvement in education can have tremendously positive consequences that far exceed the investment.  I'm knee jerk?  You are painting with a broad brush as you repeat cliches about government ineptitude.

---

Anonymous #4 said:

If spending money for education was the solution, this country would have the smartest and brightest, but we don't.
 

---

Quote:

If spending money for education was the solution, this country would have the smartest and brightest, but we don't.

---

Are you saying that US has the best education system/most amount spent on education.I disagree.

And there are social programs that work with making communities more aware of the benefits of education, condoms, encouraging your children to succeed, avoid drugs and other such jolly things.
It's about helping build stable communities that's why it's called communism