| Home | RSS Feeds |
| Funny Pictures | Funny Videos |
| Funny GIFs | YouTube Videos |
| Text/Links | Comic Editor |
| User Rankings | Channels |
| Copyright Removal Request | |
| |
#223
-
amsel (05/30/2012) [-] 
Redistribution of wealth will indubitably lead to everyone wanting the easiest, least thought provoking, and least complex jobs. This, in turn, leads to a poorer country in general, thus more starving people instead of less. If the country isn't taking on educated roles in innovation and business leadership, then the country will never expand into the capacity required to retain first world nation status, and they'll end up with nothing. You can redistribute "nothing" all you want, and it isn't going to help anyone.
Let's look how well communism has turned out for other countries. Russia/Soviet Union? China? Cuba?
Even petty socialism has proven to be almost entirely unsuccessful. Canadians are constantly coming to the United States for health care, and people in the European Union complain about having to wait months in order to see a doctor. Even within the United States, we purchased 2 car companies and a bunch of bundled securities from banks; one of the two car companies has already flopped, the other is nowhere NEAR in the clear (meanwhile Ford has maintained relatively regular profits without government intervention), and the securities have hemmorhaged money on the Feds balance sheet.
TL;DR: Communism and Socialism doesn't work. Pic semi related (from a front page post like a month ago. Sounds like a band name.)
Let's look how well communism has turned out for other countries. Russia/Soviet Union? China? Cuba?
Even petty socialism has proven to be almost entirely unsuccessful. Canadians are constantly coming to the United States for health care, and people in the European Union complain about having to wait months in order to see a doctor. Even within the United States, we purchased 2 car companies and a bunch of bundled securities from banks; one of the two car companies has already flopped, the other is nowhere NEAR in the clear (meanwhile Ford has maintained relatively regular profits without government intervention), and the securities have hemmorhaged money on the Feds balance sheet.
TL;DR: Communism and Socialism doesn't work. Pic semi related (from a front page post like a month ago. Sounds like a band name.)
#345 to #223
-
lecherouslad (05/30/2012) [-] I think Socialism is a politician's game. It's appealing to the uneducated or ignorant, who configure the majority of Votes. I think It can only be mildly successful in small countries, with lower population density, such as Ireland, But you'd need to ingratiate a Jingoist element to provide motivation.
Denmark is a paradigm of Successful socialism. 70% of wages earned are paid to the state, but the state supplies complimentary ancillary faculties.
Denmark is a paradigm of Successful socialism. 70% of wages earned are paid to the state, but the state supplies complimentary ancillary faculties.
#299 to #223
-
Sethorein (05/30/2012) [-] There's an invisible second tier being developed in Canada against the will of the pinkos who demand an entirely free health care system. The doctors are establishing a net of priority patients who donate to hospitals. What government? You don't think medical professionals have a right to run their business how they want to? Well fuck you -_-" The fact that medicine is only regulated by the government when the government feels like it is downright despicable.
The government determines salary of doctors, but doctors have to pay equipment fees. They're currently trying to cut the doctor's salary up in federal government because consumers want easier treatment availability. Countless practices are downgrading as a result.
Stupid... just... stupid.
The government determines salary of doctors, but doctors have to pay equipment fees. They're currently trying to cut the doctor's salary up in federal government because consumers want easier treatment availability. Countless practices are downgrading as a result.
Stupid... just... stupid.
#269 to #223
-
swagbot (05/30/2012) [-]
yes Yes YES!!! Well said.
A country is not suposed to run its inhabitants' lives, or protect them from adversity! It is supposed to provide a set of rules to maintain PEACE. That. is. ALL!
Then, ingenuity to make peoples lives better, more interesting and more plentiful can come from PEOPLE *cooperating* as it always has in history (with the greatest efficiency and least suffering) and always will.
Power to the People! (That's where it's always been anyways, people just have to stop being weak and start exercising it)
A country is not suposed to run its inhabitants' lives, or protect them from adversity! It is supposed to provide a set of rules to maintain PEACE. That. is. ALL!
Then, ingenuity to make peoples lives better, more interesting and more plentiful can come from PEOPLE *cooperating* as it always has in history (with the greatest efficiency and least suffering) and always will.
Power to the People! (That's where it's always been anyways, people just have to stop being weak and start exercising it)
#246 to #223
-
AlreadyExists (05/30/2012) [-] Why not we take all the money
and pay proportionally to the difficulty and amount of labor done!
Investments would be managed maybe democratically or by government employees with carefully crafted rules to avert corruption, and the profits would be distributed according to wage.
Guise I wanna start a sovereign nation.
and pay proportionally to the difficulty and amount of labor done!
Investments would be managed maybe democratically or by government employees with carefully crafted rules to avert corruption, and the profits would be distributed according to wage.
Guise I wanna start a sovereign nation.
#300 to #246
-
Sethorein (05/30/2012) [-] how do you determine how hard someone works? Oh... is it supply versus demand for the job being done?
Ya... ya... you know only like 100 people can be doctors in a state, so doctors deserve loads of cash. 1000000 people can be cashiers so... not so much for them... wait a moment... CAPITALISM :D
Ya... ya... you know only like 100 people can be doctors in a state, so doctors deserve loads of cash. 1000000 people can be cashiers so... not so much for them... wait a moment... CAPITALISM :D
#397 to #300
-
AlreadyExists (05/31/2012) [-] Yeah labor would be supply/demand, and invested capital would be pooled. In theory it would keep the elements of capitalism we like, how effective work is rewarded and ineffective work isn't, but it would take away how to a significant degree your opportunities are determined by the social class you're born into.
Not really perfect, but it doesn't seem fundamentally flawed one way or another to me.
Not really perfect, but it doesn't seem fundamentally flawed one way or another to me.
#268 to #256
-
swagbot (05/30/2012) [-]
But dude, that's the point that everyone misses.
We're already in a system like that, or at least, the Framework provided by the constitution was supposed to allow this country to function by allowing people to CO-Operate on a mutual basis without interference.
We have deviated from that path because the decent people of this country have not made efforts to fight the evil/lame-ass people, and so naturally, the lame-ass people are now ruling. That's it. AND THAT'S ALL IT WILL EVER BE IN ANY COUNTRY (or any place where there are 2+ humans)! GOOD VERSUS EVIL!
However, if the good people (us) begin fighting for good things, we will probably win.
We're already in a system like that, or at least, the Framework provided by the constitution was supposed to allow this country to function by allowing people to CO-Operate on a mutual basis without interference.
We have deviated from that path because the decent people of this country have not made efforts to fight the evil/lame-ass people, and so naturally, the lame-ass people are now ruling. That's it. AND THAT'S ALL IT WILL EVER BE IN ANY COUNTRY (or any place where there are 2+ humans)! GOOD VERSUS EVIL!
However, if the good people (us) begin fighting for good things, we will probably win.
#238 to #226
-
SgtObvious (05/30/2012) [-] Canadians that can afford it often come to the US for medical procedures due to increased wait times and generally lower quality of medical care in Canada (I'm not saying Canadian doctors are unskilled or anything, it's just that there are much less medical supplies to go around).
#241 to #238
-
obbichan (05/30/2012) [-] That is true, but it also works the other way around. People with chronic illness' come to Canada and benefit from the free health care. I don't ever recall having to pay for a single medical procedure, other than prescriptions. Our wait times are pretty shitty though.
#245 to #241
-
SgtObvious (05/30/2012) [-] Well my point is that in general, privatized health care works out better for a country because the overall quality of the healthcare is better.
A good way to look at it is in countries with privatized health care most get good care and some don't get much.
In countries with socialized healthcare everybody gets substandard healthcare with long wait times.
In a country with socialized medecine there's no room for improvement. The medecine is limited and the wait times are huge no matter where you go. In countries with privatized health care you can always find a way to get health care if you can get enough money.
A good way to look at it is in countries with privatized health care most get good care and some don't get much.
In countries with socialized healthcare everybody gets substandard healthcare with long wait times.
In a country with socialized medecine there's no room for improvement. The medecine is limited and the wait times are huge no matter where you go. In countries with privatized health care you can always find a way to get health care if you can get enough money.
#258 to #249
-
SgtObvious (05/30/2012) [-] You're misunderstanding me.
In countries with socialized healthcare there are statistically more people that don't get adequate healthcare due to the increased wait times and less medical rations to go around.
My point is that it's better for most people to get good healthcare and some to not get that much than for everyone to get substandard healthcare for the most part.
In countries with socialized healthcare there are statistically more people that don't get adequate healthcare due to the increased wait times and less medical rations to go around.
My point is that it's better for most people to get good healthcare and some to not get that much than for everyone to get substandard healthcare for the most part.
#264 to #258
-
obbichan (05/30/2012) [-] I have a cousin who went to visit his extended family in Syracuse, NY (we live in Ontario) and he cut his leg and required stitches. $2000 later he got them. In Canada that wouldn't have cost a cent, and the wait time would only be about an hour. I don't know the sources to your statistics.
My point is that for things such as stitches, broken bones, emergencies, and visits to the walk-in clinic for various problems, universal healthcare works out extremely well for everone. I grew up in a family where we hardly had any money to buy groceries, and I know that there are times where if we had to pay for medical attention but couldn't, I could have died (staph infection, blood poisoning that was caught just in time). I am very thankfull for OHIP, and anyone who complains about the line at the walk-in doesn't realize what they have.
Don't get me wrong, I know about out wait times for cancer treatment, organ transplants and such (a very high ranking politician of ours has been on the list for a kidney for 6 years), and Canada definitely needs to improve their system for that, and start educating and hiring more medical staff.
My point is that for things such as stitches, broken bones, emergencies, and visits to the walk-in clinic for various problems, universal healthcare works out extremely well for everone. I grew up in a family where we hardly had any money to buy groceries, and I know that there are times where if we had to pay for medical attention but couldn't, I could have died (staph infection, blood poisoning that was caught just in time). I am very thankfull for OHIP, and anyone who complains about the line at the walk-in doesn't realize what they have.
Don't get me wrong, I know about out wait times for cancer treatment, organ transplants and such (a very high ranking politician of ours has been on the list for a kidney for 6 years), and Canada definitely needs to improve their system for that, and start educating and hiring more medical staff.
#271 to #264
-
swagbot (05/30/2012) [-]
Wouldn't have cost a cent.
Fool!
How 'bout your ***50% income tax rate**** THAT is what went to pay for it.
And if you're okay with the gov't taking responsibility for fixing up your booboos, then fine, but that ain't how we like to do it in 'Merica.
BTW yes, medical procedures here are starting to become ridiculously expensive, but you can even attribute THAT to socialist changes in our healthcare system, a corrupt government and twisted overregulation.
Fool!
How 'bout your ***50% income tax rate**** THAT is what went to pay for it.
And if you're okay with the gov't taking responsibility for fixing up your booboos, then fine, but that ain't how we like to do it in 'Merica.
BTW yes, medical procedures here are starting to become ridiculously expensive, but you can even attribute THAT to socialist changes in our healthcare system, a corrupt government and twisted overregulation.
#274 to #271
-
obbichan (05/30/2012) [-] In my area, our taxes are fair. I don't make enough money to be taxed like that anyway. My cousin was 12 at the time. His mother was on disability, not taxed either.
Like I said, would not have cost a cent.
Not to sound rude, but I don't really care how you like to do it in 'Merica, because I'm very satisfied with what we have in my country right now, and if you are too with your country then great.
Like I said, would not have cost a cent.
Not to sound rude, but I don't really care how you like to do it in 'Merica, because I'm very satisfied with what we have in my country right now, and if you are too with your country then great.
#281 to #274
-
swagbot (05/30/2012) [-]
good for you homie.
I just don't like your lovey-dovey Canadian Socialist beliefs creeping into my country (like they already have).
I think it makes a country soft and weak (not more charitable, not 'kinder') and lays the seeds for parasitism and corruption and (worst of all) mediocrity.
Just my opinion.
I just don't like your lovey-dovey Canadian Socialist beliefs creeping into my country (like they already have).
I think it makes a country soft and weak (not more charitable, not 'kinder') and lays the seeds for parasitism and corruption and (worst of all) mediocrity.
Just my opinion.
#284 to #283
-
swagbot (05/30/2012) [-]
Mitt Romney is a suit. He will be a corrupt, ineffective croneyist as president. He has no beliefs, and just wants to propagate his own power.
Obama is much the same, but he's just a tool for the Liberal establishment.
I wanted to vote for Ron Paul, and will definitely vote for Rand (his son) if he runs in later elections.
Obama is much the same, but he's just a tool for the Liberal establishment.
I wanted to vote for Ron Paul, and will definitely vote for Rand (his son) if he runs in later elections.
#237 to #229
-
SgtObvious (05/30/2012) [-] We'd be the best with minorly regulated Capitalism.
Capitalism gives people incentive to work and works much better than a redistribution of wealth. Of course there needs to be some minor regulations such as child labor laws and minimum wage.
Capitalism gives people incentive to work and works much better than a redistribution of wealth. Of course there needs to be some minor regulations such as child labor laws and minimum wage.
