Name a nation greater than the US and why

[SimplyMe]

The more-weaponized side clearly has the advantage. But if small arms in the hands of a large population are so harmless to despots, why do the despots confiscate small arms from the population as soon as possible?

I think the better question -- if the population is armed, why are despots able to confiscate small arms? As has been stated, despite the small arms, the populace still loses to the military.

 

[Colter]

And why is that?

Because mooches can enjoy a better quality of life in socialist countries.

 

[bhsmte]

Because mooches can enjoy a better quality of life in socialist countries.

Really, is that it?

 

[Occams Barber]

Because mooches can enjoy a better quality of life in socialist countries.

It's not just the mooche(r)s.

I live in one of those evil socialist countries and, according to many of the 'best of' country comparisons, we almost all enjoy a better quality of life. At the very least we can all afford our health care.
OB

 

[Colter]

It's not just the mooche(r)s.

I live in one of those evil socialist countries and, according to many of the 'best of' country comparisons, we almost all enjoy a better quality of life. At the very least we can all afford our health care.
OB

I pay my own bills, if some economic slave paid my bills for me, they would be even more affordable but the 50% +tax rate wouldn't be worth it.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I don’t think anybody would disagree that there are some real nuts in organisations like Antifa, but the same is true at both ends of the political spectrum. What is the point you want to make?

Well, in response to @SoldierOfTheKing cartoon in post #24, kiwimac said:

Load of hooey

So the article that I posted describes the "hooey" that actually happened.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Any country that invests in its greatest resource--its citizens--is ahead of the U.S. morally and actually.

We are #18 or lower--in healthcare, in education, and more. We are endangering the future of our planet with our energy policies. We lack compassion for refugees and the suffering. We incarcerate rather than rehabilitate.

I would say most of western Europe and Canada are better than the U.S.

If the western European countries are so much better because they are more compassionate for refugees, why are there growing movements in those countries to get rid of the refugees?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

What a load of rubbish!

Would you care to explain why. Or do you prefer to settle for unsupported injections into the conversation? Perhaps you would consider the 2008 documentary "The World Without US" to be "rubbish".

The World Without US - Wikipedia

 

[wing2000]

If the western European countries are so much better because they are more compassionate for refugees, why are there growing movements in those countries to get rid of the refugees?

...because blaming the outsider is universal.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

...because blaming the outsider is universal.

So would you then disagree with @Fantine that western European countries are better than the United States because they are more "compassionate" towards refugees?

 

[wing2000]

So would you then disagree with @Fantine that western European countries are better than the United States because they are more "compassionate" towards refugees?

I won't opine on such a broad generalization.

 

[Sparagmos]

It is all a part of her "Green New Deal". High speed rail is supposed to replace air travel and all cars are going to be replace by electric vehicles.

Since when are electric cars not cars? LOL.

 

[Tom 1]

Well, in response to @SoldierOfTheKing cartoon in post #24, kiwimac said:

So the article that I posted describes the "hooey" that actually happened.

Got it.

 

[mama2one]

following

 

[TheNorwegian]

Norway? The nation of 5,000,000 with next to zero black, Hispanic or Asian population?

There is no problem with diversity, because there is little to none.

Fun fact: The percentage of people born outside of the country is higher in Norway than in the US

Norway where 38.00 of every 100.00 you make goes in personal income tax.

Wrong: To reach 40% income tax you have to make 2 million NOK (230.000 USD). And that is if you have no deductions whatsoever. People who make millions can afford tax planning, so I doubt anyone actually pay 40% - even though it is technically possible to pay that much if you try hard. Most people would pay considerably less.

Plus: The tax you pay covers free health care, free higher education for your kids and a pension plan

And an additional 25.00 for VAT taxes?

So out of 100.00 you actually make 37.00.

Wrong again: You do not pay VAT on everything and certainly not on your income (!!). VAT is also lower on food, and no VAT on rent or mortgage and a number of other services

Conclusion: Your calculation is absolutely rubbish.
Source: I used to work as a certified accountant in Norway

Where rent is 67% higher?

Rent depends on where you live. Of course, a house in some deep forest of Alaska would be cheaper than an appartment in a posh area of Oslo. The same is true the other way around: A house in the neck-of the-woods of Norway is cheaper than a flat in Manhattan

Where a meal for two is 132.00 vs 45?

Again, this depends on what you eat and where. I took my wife out to eat yesterday and we had a nice meal for two for USD 45,- In Norway, you are not supposed to give tips, since the waiters have a decent wage to begin with. So you pay those 45$ and that's it

However, it is true that eating out is more expensive in Norway. This is because the wage disparity is smaller. Even wages for waiters and people working in shops are decent. This means that this kind of services are more expensive than in countries where you cannot live from having just one job like that

That Norway?

No, not your caricature of Norway - but an honest picture of Norway​

 

[Tom 1]

Out of curiosity - the roughly 20% of my income I paid on average while working in the UK, made up of income tax and national insurance payments, provides for me free access to healthcare across the EU, various other state services and a state pension (admittedly the state pension in the UK is pretty poor). What percentage of an average person’s income would be needed to provide the same level of coverage in the US - i.e unlimited healthcare access with no add-ons (unless you want to pay extra to see a private Dr, possibly fast track an op and so on) or additional payments, a basic pension and other state services, education up to undergrad level, things of that sort.
Edit - I also paid 5% (pre tax) into a private pension, under a govt scheme my employer matched that payment. That brings my total up to about 22% for benefits accrued. Also, although I no longer live in the UK, my access to all of the above remains the same.

 

[Tom 1]

So...which country has treated their indigenous population well?

I think NZ and Costa Rica have done better than most.

 

[Tom 1]

It is all a part of her "Green New Deal". High speed rail is supposed to replace air travel and all cars are going to be replace by electric vehicles.

What do people who don't like those ideas see as being wrong with them?

Nb. the proposed ideas have been misrepresented, but that's a longer topic.

 

[Allandavid]

Fun fact: The percentage of people born outside of the country is higher in Norway than in the US

Wrong: To reach 40% income tax you have to make 2 million NOK (230.000 USD). And that is if you have no deductions whatsoever. People who make millions can afford tax planning, so I doubt anyone actually pay 40% - even though it is technically possible to pay that much if you try hard. Most people would pay considerably less.

Plus: The tax you pay covers free health care, free higher education for your kids and a pension plan



Wrong again: You do not pay VAT on everything and certainly not on your income (!!). VAT is also lower on food, and no VAT on rent or mortgage and a number of other services

Conclusion: Your calculation is absolutely rubbish.
Source: I used to work as a certified accountant in Norway



Rent depends on where you live. Of course, a house in some deep forest of Alaska would be cheaper than an appartment in a posh area of Oslo. The same is true the other way around: A house in the neck-of the-woods of Norway is cheaper than a flat in Manhattan



Again, this depends on what you eat and where. I took my wife out to eat yesterday and we had a nice meal for two for USD 45,- In Norway, you are not supposed to give tips, since the waiters have a decent wage to begin with. So you pay those 45$ and that's it

However, it is true that eating out is more expensive in Norway. This is because the wage disparity is smaller. Even wages for waiters and people working in shops are decent. This means that this kind of services are more expensive than in countries where you cannot live from having just one job like that



No, not your caricature of Norway - but an honest picture of Norway​

Thwack...! Outta here......

 

[Tom 1]

Since when are electric cars not cars? LOL.

They are un-(north)american. If you listen very closely to the faint hum of an electric motor, you can hear Marxist ideas being read backwards.