Upload
Login or register

proudnerd

Last status update:
-
Date Signed Up:12/23/2009
Last Login:7/26/2016
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#4314
Highest Content Rank:#2194
Highest Comment Rank:#2882
Content Thumbs: 5353 total,  5948 ,  595
Comment Thumbs: 4962 total,  6147 ,  1185
Content Level Progress: 88% (88/100)
Level 151 Content: Faptastic → Level 152 Content: Faptastic
Comment Level Progress: 93% (93/100)
Level 242 Comments: Doinitrite → Level 243 Comments: Doinitrite
Subscribers:3
Content Views:124663
Times Content Favorited:836 times
Total Comments Made:1601
FJ Points:9527
Favorite Tags: fail (2) | fapping (2)

latest user's comments

#181 - So wealth redistribution is your solution? That doesn't kill t…  [+] (9 new replies) 05/19/2016 on Jodie Foster +1
User avatar
#184 - theruinedsage (05/19/2016) [-]
You do realize that, just about, the the only reason the US is richer than Europe is that a world war bombed our continent into oblivion twice in thirty years..
#189 - proudnerd (05/19/2016) [-]
Really? That's the only reason? If only there was a direct comparison to make...
User avatar
#191 - theruinedsage (05/19/2016) [-]
Oh wow, you have cities full of niggers, that's almost the same as having to rebuild all your major cities when a large part of your workforce is either dead or disabled

And then doing the same thirty years later.
User avatar
#198 - proudnerd (05/19/2016) [-]
My point is that you can come back from literally being obliterated by a nuclear bomb better than socialist economic policies. But sure, blame the wars that your continent started over 70 years ago for your own economic fallacies, and not the economic policies.
Oh, and you still haven't provided an example of socialism being more successful than capitalism.
#200 - theruinedsage (05/19/2016) [-]
Oh gee, an example comes to mind...

Sure you can come back
But you're claiming economical policies have less of a say than having to completely rebuild your country twice over..
#203 - proudnerd (05/19/2016) [-]
No, that's the opposite of what I'm saying. I'm saying you can bombed to NOTHING and still be better off with the right economic principles than be left alone and having bad ones.
User avatar
#207 - theruinedsage (05/19/2016) [-]
And your example is a country that was hit nowhere nearly as hard...

Which, somehow, proves that the US is richer than Europe because reasons that have nothing to do with massive amounts of resources, massive unused open territories, and not getting bombed to nothing twice in half a century..

Sure, your economical policies have given you a big boost, never mind that my country has more of an open market than yours, but now you're reaping the downside of it in the form of extreme inequality, ridiculous tuition rates and hospital bills.
#214 - proudnerd (05/19/2016) [-]
As an American, I can tell you tuition and health care aren't as big of a deal as you may think. I graduated recently without any student loans. It's hard to do, but if you get scholarships and have decent-paying jobs while you go to school, you can do it. As far a health care goes: get a decent job, and you have health care. My girlfriend who makes like $10 an hour has health care as an State-Tested Nursing Assistant, a program that take a month to complete and they are always in need of more. Sure, you have to clean up shit for a living, but you can get health care coverage from your job even if it's not a fancy four-year degree requiring job. You just have to not work a shitty minimum wage job designed for high school students.
And yes, the US could learn a thing or two from Denmark. The government should stop fucking with the market, and make it easier to start a business, like in Denmark. That's why it's the #1 best country to do business in according to Forbes. That means the government shouldn't be redistributing wealth and shouldn't be interfering with the market. The things you are suggesting are exactly why the US is slipping. We don't need more of it, we need less of it. www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2014/12/17/u-s-slides-again-as-denmark-tops-forbes-best-countries-for-business/#6f53f69759ce
User avatar
#216 - theruinedsage (05/19/2016) [-]
You do realize you can have a free market and still redistribute wealth among your citizens. If anything, we're proof of that.

Our max tax is 95% if I'm not much mistaken. Result is that we're one of the most equal countries in the world.
#172 - So what's your solution? Tell people to not make as much? Gove…  [+] (11 new replies) 05/19/2016 on Jodie Foster +2
User avatar
#174 - theruinedsage (05/19/2016) [-]
I thought it was pretty obvious that my solution is to raise the taxes for the super rich.

Ah yes, Americans all consider themselves impoverished millionaires.
And instead of fixing how ridiculously overpriced tuition is, or how you pay $500 for a saline bag, you should just get rich
Then it's not your problem anymore.
#181 - proudnerd (05/19/2016) [-]
So wealth redistribution is your solution? That doesn't kill the economy at all. Please tell me which country that does this has a better economy than the US (and if you mention a European country, guess again: fee.org/articles/most-of-europe-is-a-lot-poorer-than-most-of-the-united-states/ )
And I love that you mention tuition. It's overpriced because the government redistributes wealth. You know the government spends more on grants and scholarships than it would to pay the flat rate of everyone's tuition who goes to a public university? It's because they pick and choose who has to pay for it. Making it free would actually benefit rich people more than poor people (see chart).
User avatar
#184 - theruinedsage (05/19/2016) [-]
You do realize that, just about, the the only reason the US is richer than Europe is that a world war bombed our continent into oblivion twice in thirty years..
#189 - proudnerd (05/19/2016) [-]
Really? That's the only reason? If only there was a direct comparison to make...
User avatar
#191 - theruinedsage (05/19/2016) [-]
Oh wow, you have cities full of niggers, that's almost the same as having to rebuild all your major cities when a large part of your workforce is either dead or disabled

And then doing the same thirty years later.
User avatar
#198 - proudnerd (05/19/2016) [-]
My point is that you can come back from literally being obliterated by a nuclear bomb better than socialist economic policies. But sure, blame the wars that your continent started over 70 years ago for your own economic fallacies, and not the economic policies.
Oh, and you still haven't provided an example of socialism being more successful than capitalism.
#200 - theruinedsage (05/19/2016) [-]
Oh gee, an example comes to mind...

Sure you can come back
But you're claiming economical policies have less of a say than having to completely rebuild your country twice over..
#203 - proudnerd (05/19/2016) [-]
No, that's the opposite of what I'm saying. I'm saying you can bombed to NOTHING and still be better off with the right economic principles than be left alone and having bad ones.
User avatar
#207 - theruinedsage (05/19/2016) [-]
And your example is a country that was hit nowhere nearly as hard...

Which, somehow, proves that the US is richer than Europe because reasons that have nothing to do with massive amounts of resources, massive unused open territories, and not getting bombed to nothing twice in half a century..

Sure, your economical policies have given you a big boost, never mind that my country has more of an open market than yours, but now you're reaping the downside of it in the form of extreme inequality, ridiculous tuition rates and hospital bills.
#214 - proudnerd (05/19/2016) [-]
As an American, I can tell you tuition and health care aren't as big of a deal as you may think. I graduated recently without any student loans. It's hard to do, but if you get scholarships and have decent-paying jobs while you go to school, you can do it. As far a health care goes: get a decent job, and you have health care. My girlfriend who makes like $10 an hour has health care as an State-Tested Nursing Assistant, a program that take a month to complete and they are always in need of more. Sure, you have to clean up shit for a living, but you can get health care coverage from your job even if it's not a fancy four-year degree requiring job. You just have to not work a shitty minimum wage job designed for high school students.
And yes, the US could learn a thing or two from Denmark. The government should stop fucking with the market, and make it easier to start a business, like in Denmark. That's why it's the #1 best country to do business in according to Forbes. That means the government shouldn't be redistributing wealth and shouldn't be interfering with the market. The things you are suggesting are exactly why the US is slipping. We don't need more of it, we need less of it. www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2014/12/17/u-s-slides-again-as-denmark-tops-forbes-best-countries-for-business/#6f53f69759ce
User avatar
#216 - theruinedsage (05/19/2016) [-]
You do realize you can have a free market and still redistribute wealth among your citizens. If anything, we're proof of that.

Our max tax is 95% if I'm not much mistaken. Result is that we're one of the most equal countries in the world.
#149 - Here's the problem, that video bounces around between wealth a…  [+] (13 new replies) 05/19/2016 on Jodie Foster +1
User avatar
#169 - theruinedsage (05/19/2016) [-]
No it doesn't bounce around between income and wealth. It mentions income once, mentions shares once, and the rest of the time it talks exclusively about wealth.

Not how much money you make each month, but how much money you actually have available. How much money you have in case you get cancer, or need to send your kids off to college. All the stuff that actually make a huge difference in your life when it matters.

Oh wow, they pay 3x larger a part of the total taxes than the part of their total income.
Now I would care if that meant they made about three, or ten, or even fifty times as much as their average employee.
But they don't.
They make so much more that they could work for an hour a month, and still make as much.
How would it not be fair that they needed to work a day to make as much as the average employee?
Is it because they create 170 times as much wealth for us all when they work than their average employee?
Is it because they work 170 times as much?
Somehow I don't think so.


So I do think it's fair that they should pay more, a lot more.
Because as it stands, they aren't paid according to how much they create for all of us.
User avatar
#172 - proudnerd (05/19/2016) [-]
So what's your solution? Tell people to not make as much? Government intervention? More taxes? If you just say there's a problem and don't propose any solutions, you're just bitching.
My solution is to become one of those rich people, rather than envy them.
User avatar
#174 - theruinedsage (05/19/2016) [-]
I thought it was pretty obvious that my solution is to raise the taxes for the super rich.

Ah yes, Americans all consider themselves impoverished millionaires.
And instead of fixing how ridiculously overpriced tuition is, or how you pay $500 for a saline bag, you should just get rich
Then it's not your problem anymore.
#181 - proudnerd (05/19/2016) [-]
So wealth redistribution is your solution? That doesn't kill the economy at all. Please tell me which country that does this has a better economy than the US (and if you mention a European country, guess again: fee.org/articles/most-of-europe-is-a-lot-poorer-than-most-of-the-united-states/ )
And I love that you mention tuition. It's overpriced because the government redistributes wealth. You know the government spends more on grants and scholarships than it would to pay the flat rate of everyone's tuition who goes to a public university? It's because they pick and choose who has to pay for it. Making it free would actually benefit rich people more than poor people (see chart).
User avatar
#184 - theruinedsage (05/19/2016) [-]
You do realize that, just about, the the only reason the US is richer than Europe is that a world war bombed our continent into oblivion twice in thirty years..
#189 - proudnerd (05/19/2016) [-]
Really? That's the only reason? If only there was a direct comparison to make...
User avatar
#191 - theruinedsage (05/19/2016) [-]
Oh wow, you have cities full of niggers, that's almost the same as having to rebuild all your major cities when a large part of your workforce is either dead or disabled

And then doing the same thirty years later.
User avatar
#198 - proudnerd (05/19/2016) [-]
My point is that you can come back from literally being obliterated by a nuclear bomb better than socialist economic policies. But sure, blame the wars that your continent started over 70 years ago for your own economic fallacies, and not the economic policies.
Oh, and you still haven't provided an example of socialism being more successful than capitalism.
#200 - theruinedsage (05/19/2016) [-]
Oh gee, an example comes to mind...

Sure you can come back
But you're claiming economical policies have less of a say than having to completely rebuild your country twice over..
#203 - proudnerd (05/19/2016) [-]
No, that's the opposite of what I'm saying. I'm saying you can bombed to NOTHING and still be better off with the right economic principles than be left alone and having bad ones.
User avatar
#207 - theruinedsage (05/19/2016) [-]
And your example is a country that was hit nowhere nearly as hard...

Which, somehow, proves that the US is richer than Europe because reasons that have nothing to do with massive amounts of resources, massive unused open territories, and not getting bombed to nothing twice in half a century..

Sure, your economical policies have given you a big boost, never mind that my country has more of an open market than yours, but now you're reaping the downside of it in the form of extreme inequality, ridiculous tuition rates and hospital bills.
#214 - proudnerd (05/19/2016) [-]
As an American, I can tell you tuition and health care aren't as big of a deal as you may think. I graduated recently without any student loans. It's hard to do, but if you get scholarships and have decent-paying jobs while you go to school, you can do it. As far a health care goes: get a decent job, and you have health care. My girlfriend who makes like $10 an hour has health care as an State-Tested Nursing Assistant, a program that take a month to complete and they are always in need of more. Sure, you have to clean up shit for a living, but you can get health care coverage from your job even if it's not a fancy four-year degree requiring job. You just have to not work a shitty minimum wage job designed for high school students.
And yes, the US could learn a thing or two from Denmark. The government should stop fucking with the market, and make it easier to start a business, like in Denmark. That's why it's the #1 best country to do business in according to Forbes. That means the government shouldn't be redistributing wealth and shouldn't be interfering with the market. The things you are suggesting are exactly why the US is slipping. We don't need more of it, we need less of it. www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2014/12/17/u-s-slides-again-as-denmark-tops-forbes-best-countries-for-business/#6f53f69759ce
User avatar
#216 - theruinedsage (05/19/2016) [-]
You do realize you can have a free market and still redistribute wealth among your citizens. If anything, we're proof of that.

Our max tax is 95% if I'm not much mistaken. Result is that we're one of the most equal countries in the world.
#128 - Having no stock market participation does not indicate having …  [+] (15 new replies) 05/19/2016 on Jodie Foster +1
User avatar
#130 - theruinedsage (05/19/2016) [-]
Yeah you're right, it makes more money, in fact it's the best way to make money
And surprise, if a tiny part of the population are the only ones making a lot of money, the rest become poorer and poorer. And sure, they aren't hording it, but it sure as hell isn't doing anyone else any good, so what's the bloody difference?

You talk about fair?
How is taxes less fair than the current wealth inequality?
Is it fair that the only ones who can afford to invest are the ones making money?
And how do you actually think it wouldn't work? You think it's a coincidence that it works everywhere else in the western world?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM&index=5&list=LLo3sZPdkocaxVh5sk_OPz1w

How is this fair in your world? Is it fair because a single percentage of the population somehow worked thousands or millions of times harder than everyone else? The only way they got THIS rich is by exploiting a broken system.

But sure, fixing that wouldn't be fair to the poor poor billionaires.

Mind you, this is four years old, and things haven't even remotely improved.


But honestly, I could just care less. I could just enjoy that your extreme inequality means cheaper products for me.
I just don't see how you people can accept to be screwed over so much all the time.
#149 - proudnerd (05/19/2016) [-]
Here's the problem, that video bounces around between wealth and income. It's true that there is a large wealth inequality in America, but that's because wealth is effectively savings, and people who don't have a lot don't tend to save a lot. Think about home much wealth a college student has. It's probably zero or negative due to student loans. Now, follow that student after graduation, and this same individual will have plenty of wealth down the road when they have a well-paying job and have had one for years. Studies have done this and shown that 3/4 of people in the bottom 20% are in the top 40% 16 years later.
Now let's talk income, where the government can actually act. The top 1% make 17% of the total income in the US. They pay 46% of the taxes. I don't see how that's not fair. Let's look at the table I've placed to the left. If you make up to $47k a year, you're probably not paying taxes (after refunds). But please, tell me how the rich need to pay more taxes.
User avatar
#169 - theruinedsage (05/19/2016) [-]
No it doesn't bounce around between income and wealth. It mentions income once, mentions shares once, and the rest of the time it talks exclusively about wealth.

Not how much money you make each month, but how much money you actually have available. How much money you have in case you get cancer, or need to send your kids off to college. All the stuff that actually make a huge difference in your life when it matters.

Oh wow, they pay 3x larger a part of the total taxes than the part of their total income.
Now I would care if that meant they made about three, or ten, or even fifty times as much as their average employee.
But they don't.
They make so much more that they could work for an hour a month, and still make as much.
How would it not be fair that they needed to work a day to make as much as the average employee?
Is it because they create 170 times as much wealth for us all when they work than their average employee?
Is it because they work 170 times as much?
Somehow I don't think so.


So I do think it's fair that they should pay more, a lot more.
Because as it stands, they aren't paid according to how much they create for all of us.
User avatar
#172 - proudnerd (05/19/2016) [-]
So what's your solution? Tell people to not make as much? Government intervention? More taxes? If you just say there's a problem and don't propose any solutions, you're just bitching.
My solution is to become one of those rich people, rather than envy them.
User avatar
#174 - theruinedsage (05/19/2016) [-]
I thought it was pretty obvious that my solution is to raise the taxes for the super rich.

Ah yes, Americans all consider themselves impoverished millionaires.
And instead of fixing how ridiculously overpriced tuition is, or how you pay $500 for a saline bag, you should just get rich
Then it's not your problem anymore.
#181 - proudnerd (05/19/2016) [-]
So wealth redistribution is your solution? That doesn't kill the economy at all. Please tell me which country that does this has a better economy than the US (and if you mention a European country, guess again: fee.org/articles/most-of-europe-is-a-lot-poorer-than-most-of-the-united-states/ )
And I love that you mention tuition. It's overpriced because the government redistributes wealth. You know the government spends more on grants and scholarships than it would to pay the flat rate of everyone's tuition who goes to a public university? It's because they pick and choose who has to pay for it. Making it free would actually benefit rich people more than poor people (see chart).
User avatar
#184 - theruinedsage (05/19/2016) [-]
You do realize that, just about, the the only reason the US is richer than Europe is that a world war bombed our continent into oblivion twice in thirty years..
#189 - proudnerd (05/19/2016) [-]
Really? That's the only reason? If only there was a direct comparison to make...
User avatar
#191 - theruinedsage (05/19/2016) [-]
Oh wow, you have cities full of niggers, that's almost the same as having to rebuild all your major cities when a large part of your workforce is either dead or disabled

And then doing the same thirty years later.
User avatar
#198 - proudnerd (05/19/2016) [-]
My point is that you can come back from literally being obliterated by a nuclear bomb better than socialist economic policies. But sure, blame the wars that your continent started over 70 years ago for your own economic fallacies, and not the economic policies.
Oh, and you still haven't provided an example of socialism being more successful than capitalism.
#200 - theruinedsage (05/19/2016) [-]
Oh gee, an example comes to mind...

Sure you can come back
But you're claiming economical policies have less of a say than having to completely rebuild your country twice over..
#203 - proudnerd (05/19/2016) [-]
No, that's the opposite of what I'm saying. I'm saying you can bombed to NOTHING and still be better off with the right economic principles than be left alone and having bad ones.
User avatar
#207 - theruinedsage (05/19/2016) [-]
And your example is a country that was hit nowhere nearly as hard...

Which, somehow, proves that the US is richer than Europe because reasons that have nothing to do with massive amounts of resources, massive unused open territories, and not getting bombed to nothing twice in half a century..

Sure, your economical policies have given you a big boost, never mind that my country has more of an open market than yours, but now you're reaping the downside of it in the form of extreme inequality, ridiculous tuition rates and hospital bills.
#214 - proudnerd (05/19/2016) [-]
As an American, I can tell you tuition and health care aren't as big of a deal as you may think. I graduated recently without any student loans. It's hard to do, but if you get scholarships and have decent-paying jobs while you go to school, you can do it. As far a health care goes: get a decent job, and you have health care. My girlfriend who makes like $10 an hour has health care as an State-Tested Nursing Assistant, a program that take a month to complete and they are always in need of more. Sure, you have to clean up shit for a living, but you can get health care coverage from your job even if it's not a fancy four-year degree requiring job. You just have to not work a shitty minimum wage job designed for high school students.
And yes, the US could learn a thing or two from Denmark. The government should stop fucking with the market, and make it easier to start a business, like in Denmark. That's why it's the #1 best country to do business in according to Forbes. That means the government shouldn't be redistributing wealth and shouldn't be interfering with the market. The things you are suggesting are exactly why the US is slipping. We don't need more of it, we need less of it. www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2014/12/17/u-s-slides-again-as-denmark-tops-forbes-best-countries-for-business/#6f53f69759ce
User avatar
#216 - theruinedsage (05/19/2016) [-]
You do realize you can have a free market and still redistribute wealth among your citizens. If anything, we're proof of that.

Our max tax is 95% if I'm not much mistaken. Result is that we're one of the most equal countries in the world.
#121 - Maybe those people should use their own money to help poor peo…  [+] (17 new replies) 05/19/2016 on Jodie Foster +1
#123 - theruinedsage (05/19/2016) [-]
Maybe charity does jack shit in a country where one percentage owns 50% of all stocks, bonds and mutual funds, and half the population owns 0.5%.

But sure, she could giver her 100 million dollars to the poorest, I'm sure they would all appreciate the extra five bucks, because that's the difference between living on the street and having an actual life.
User avatar
#128 - proudnerd (05/19/2016) [-]
Having no stock market participation does not indicate having no money. It just means the top one percent have plenty to invest in other businesses, so they can grow. Sure, it makes them money, but it's not hoarding.
But what's your proposed solution? More taxes? More government intervention? Because those wouldn't work, nor would they be fair.
User avatar
#130 - theruinedsage (05/19/2016) [-]
Yeah you're right, it makes more money, in fact it's the best way to make money
And surprise, if a tiny part of the population are the only ones making a lot of money, the rest become poorer and poorer. And sure, they aren't hording it, but it sure as hell isn't doing anyone else any good, so what's the bloody difference?

You talk about fair?
How is taxes less fair than the current wealth inequality?
Is it fair that the only ones who can afford to invest are the ones making money?
And how do you actually think it wouldn't work? You think it's a coincidence that it works everywhere else in the western world?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM&index=5&list=LLo3sZPdkocaxVh5sk_OPz1w

How is this fair in your world? Is it fair because a single percentage of the population somehow worked thousands or millions of times harder than everyone else? The only way they got THIS rich is by exploiting a broken system.

But sure, fixing that wouldn't be fair to the poor poor billionaires.

Mind you, this is four years old, and things haven't even remotely improved.


But honestly, I could just care less. I could just enjoy that your extreme inequality means cheaper products for me.
I just don't see how you people can accept to be screwed over so much all the time.
#149 - proudnerd (05/19/2016) [-]
Here's the problem, that video bounces around between wealth and income. It's true that there is a large wealth inequality in America, but that's because wealth is effectively savings, and people who don't have a lot don't tend to save a lot. Think about home much wealth a college student has. It's probably zero or negative due to student loans. Now, follow that student after graduation, and this same individual will have plenty of wealth down the road when they have a well-paying job and have had one for years. Studies have done this and shown that 3/4 of people in the bottom 20% are in the top 40% 16 years later.
Now let's talk income, where the government can actually act. The top 1% make 17% of the total income in the US. They pay 46% of the taxes. I don't see how that's not fair. Let's look at the table I've placed to the left. If you make up to $47k a year, you're probably not paying taxes (after refunds). But please, tell me how the rich need to pay more taxes.
User avatar
#169 - theruinedsage (05/19/2016) [-]
No it doesn't bounce around between income and wealth. It mentions income once, mentions shares once, and the rest of the time it talks exclusively about wealth.

Not how much money you make each month, but how much money you actually have available. How much money you have in case you get cancer, or need to send your kids off to college. All the stuff that actually make a huge difference in your life when it matters.

Oh wow, they pay 3x larger a part of the total taxes than the part of their total income.
Now I would care if that meant they made about three, or ten, or even fifty times as much as their average employee.
But they don't.
They make so much more that they could work for an hour a month, and still make as much.
How would it not be fair that they needed to work a day to make as much as the average employee?
Is it because they create 170 times as much wealth for us all when they work than their average employee?
Is it because they work 170 times as much?
Somehow I don't think so.


So I do think it's fair that they should pay more, a lot more.
Because as it stands, they aren't paid according to how much they create for all of us.
User avatar
#172 - proudnerd (05/19/2016) [-]
So what's your solution? Tell people to not make as much? Government intervention? More taxes? If you just say there's a problem and don't propose any solutions, you're just bitching.
My solution is to become one of those rich people, rather than envy them.
User avatar
#174 - theruinedsage (05/19/2016) [-]
I thought it was pretty obvious that my solution is to raise the taxes for the super rich.

Ah yes, Americans all consider themselves impoverished millionaires.
And instead of fixing how ridiculously overpriced tuition is, or how you pay $500 for a saline bag, you should just get rich
Then it's not your problem anymore.
#181 - proudnerd (05/19/2016) [-]
So wealth redistribution is your solution? That doesn't kill the economy at all. Please tell me which country that does this has a better economy than the US (and if you mention a European country, guess again: fee.org/articles/most-of-europe-is-a-lot-poorer-than-most-of-the-united-states/ )
And I love that you mention tuition. It's overpriced because the government redistributes wealth. You know the government spends more on grants and scholarships than it would to pay the flat rate of everyone's tuition who goes to a public university? It's because they pick and choose who has to pay for it. Making it free would actually benefit rich people more than poor people (see chart).
User avatar
#184 - theruinedsage (05/19/2016) [-]
You do realize that, just about, the the only reason the US is richer than Europe is that a world war bombed our continent into oblivion twice in thirty years..
#189 - proudnerd (05/19/2016) [-]
Really? That's the only reason? If only there was a direct comparison to make...
User avatar
#191 - theruinedsage (05/19/2016) [-]
Oh wow, you have cities full of niggers, that's almost the same as having to rebuild all your major cities when a large part of your workforce is either dead or disabled

And then doing the same thirty years later.
User avatar
#198 - proudnerd (05/19/2016) [-]
My point is that you can come back from literally being obliterated by a nuclear bomb better than socialist economic policies. But sure, blame the wars that your continent started over 70 years ago for your own economic fallacies, and not the economic policies.
Oh, and you still haven't provided an example of socialism being more successful than capitalism.
#200 - theruinedsage (05/19/2016) [-]
Oh gee, an example comes to mind...

Sure you can come back
But you're claiming economical policies have less of a say than having to completely rebuild your country twice over..
#203 - proudnerd (05/19/2016) [-]
No, that's the opposite of what I'm saying. I'm saying you can bombed to NOTHING and still be better off with the right economic principles than be left alone and having bad ones.
User avatar
#207 - theruinedsage (05/19/2016) [-]
And your example is a country that was hit nowhere nearly as hard...

Which, somehow, proves that the US is richer than Europe because reasons that have nothing to do with massive amounts of resources, massive unused open territories, and not getting bombed to nothing twice in half a century..

Sure, your economical policies have given you a big boost, never mind that my country has more of an open market than yours, but now you're reaping the downside of it in the form of extreme inequality, ridiculous tuition rates and hospital bills.
#214 - proudnerd (05/19/2016) [-]
As an American, I can tell you tuition and health care aren't as big of a deal as you may think. I graduated recently without any student loans. It's hard to do, but if you get scholarships and have decent-paying jobs while you go to school, you can do it. As far a health care goes: get a decent job, and you have health care. My girlfriend who makes like $10 an hour has health care as an State-Tested Nursing Assistant, a program that take a month to complete and they are always in need of more. Sure, you have to clean up shit for a living, but you can get health care coverage from your job even if it's not a fancy four-year degree requiring job. You just have to not work a shitty minimum wage job designed for high school students.
And yes, the US could learn a thing or two from Denmark. The government should stop fucking with the market, and make it easier to start a business, like in Denmark. That's why it's the #1 best country to do business in according to Forbes. That means the government shouldn't be redistributing wealth and shouldn't be interfering with the market. The things you are suggesting are exactly why the US is slipping. We don't need more of it, we need less of it. www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2014/12/17/u-s-slides-again-as-denmark-tops-forbes-best-countries-for-business/#6f53f69759ce
User avatar
#216 - theruinedsage (05/19/2016) [-]
You do realize you can have a free market and still redistribute wealth among your citizens. If anything, we're proof of that.

Our max tax is 95% if I'm not much mistaken. Result is that we're one of the most equal countries in the world.
#19 - Oh that's right, a sequel being like the first game is a crime… 05/17/2016 on evolution 0
#53 - Halo 3's campaign was meticulously designed and tested not jus… 05/16/2016 on Doom does it old school +1
#146 - Says the woman who actively pays women less than men.  [+] (5 new replies) 05/14/2016 on Anti Women +10
User avatar
#148 - whitestarseven (05/14/2016) [-]
Does anyone have the source for the inequality at the Clinton foundation?
#225 - xierthard (05/14/2016) [-]
dailycaller.com/2016/04/12/pay-gap-alert-clinton-foundation-male-execs-earn-38-more-than-women/
There you go, they even give the link to a PDF of the IRS report.
User avatar
#281 - whitestarseven (05/15/2016) [-]
Thanks!
User avatar
#160 - capslockrage (05/14/2016) [-]
No, because it was made up.
User avatar
#282 - whitestarseven (05/15/2016) [-]
It looks pretty legit. I suppose it could be fake, but that would be a lot of effort to fake that filing.
#57 - It's funny cause I did just that after I commented and watched… 05/14/2016 on You sell weed? +1
#29 - I've seen this guy before (with the waterMELON) vines. Who is he?  [+] (3 new replies) 05/14/2016 on You sell weed? +1
#32 - crispytg (05/14/2016) [-]
here you go fam, yw
bfy.tw/5lFL
User avatar
#57 - proudnerd (05/14/2016) [-]
It's funny cause I did just that after I commented and watched a couple vine comps. Seems like the above one and the watermelon ones are really the only good ones he has.
#31 - anon (05/14/2016) [-]
Marlon Webbs