Socialist candidate Ocasio-Cortez once saw herself as Smithian capitalist, viewed feminism as 'relic

She knows she can go the Sanders route, rile up a bunch of unemployed liberals, and get rich from her campaign.

 

And like you said, your stats don't take into consideration the sizes either.

Its far easier to pull off socialistic policies in smaller nations than larger ones. Look at the Soviet Union.

You can't compare Denmark to the US.

There are far too many outlying factors.

You also have to realize that smaller countries, especially in Europe, tend to have to deal with their neighbors on a regular basis, they have experienced multitudes of wars on their own turf, it makes sense that they would have more reliance on the group as opposed to the individual.

You are looking at results and developing a theory instead of understanding the nations themselves, their place and the world, and figuring out why they are different.

Socialist policies would not work here and for a prime example we can look at the debate over Obamacare.

It worked just fine in these other nations but it was a key dividing issue in the US and why is that?

Because we are not them.

It didn't produce the results it would have in Sweden and you can argue all day that we did it wrong but I'm sure Sweden did also, they made mistakes, but it worked, it didn't work here.

Why?

Because we aren't Sweden.

You need to tailor economic policy on many things, history, culture, geography, beliefs, religion....it all factors in.

America is not Europe.

 

LoL

Sure.

 

Once again, the Soviet Union is not an example of a free market economy. This is not something that varies between nations of different sizes, free market economics works for smaller countries, and it works for larger countries. It is the best method for creating wealth and prosperity. As for implementing social programs, it is simply a matter of taking a portion of the revenue gained in the free market to support said programs, what it depends on is whether or not the country creates enough revenue per capita to support said programs. The critical factor isn't the overall size of the country, but what the country is able to produce per capita

For social programs like single payer healthcare, it would actually require LESS money than the amount of revenue that our current healthcare system requires (both overall and per capita). A single payer healthcare system would in fact save the US economy $500 billion annually, which would be enough money saved to pay for tuition free public college and then some.

http://c-8oqtgrjgwu46x24yyyx2efqnnc...2534htkgfocp.rfh_$/$/$/$?i10c.ua=1&i10c.dv=14

 

Cherry picking your information.

In our system the individual largely picks up the expense through insurance, in a socialist system the state does.

So while you look at the individual cost divided by all the people in the nation it may seem lower but for those who actually pay for it, the cost goes up.

You also aren't adding in the fact that all of your "better" nations also have a higher tax rate then us meaning that if you aren't using insurance consistently the cost adds up to a higher average.

Finally, lets look at our experiment, Obamacare, Obama promised it would save people 2,500 a year and they could keep their plan, in fact, we have seen costs skyrocket and certainly people lost their plans.

According to you it should have been a success.

It wasn't.

Now Romney was able to pull off Obamacare and why? Because its a smaller group of people, it can work like that, but not through a nationalized system and what works in Massachusetts may not work in Idaho.

That is the point you are not getting.

 

If these "countries who outrank" the US in free market economics are so strong, I suggest Trump is on the right track in making them all pull their own weight in paying for alliances and we pull the plug on anymore "global welfare". America first, chew on that.

 

She is just young, naive and confused. You should hope she keeps it up. It is a very bad political message.

 

Ok, point taken that people evolve their ideology. So, do you think that Social Democracy, which represents a hard left shift for Democrats, is what a majority of the voting public wants? And, can you articulate what that would look like shifting a representative republic to a centralized command and control form of government?

 

And Schumer said "we have to strengthen our borders", so?...

 

Gosh it’s almost like politicians views are flexible based on the whims of the voters

 

You right wingers are sure obsessed with her!

 

How does one read Adam Smith's thesis of economics, to then become a socialist? That's like eating meat all of your life, to suddenly become a vegan. It's possible, but it's not probable and actually it borderlines unlikely lol. Definitely feels like she took the ultra-socialist path for "political convenience". But what the Bernie Bots are going to learn, is that it was only convenient as a political alternative to the Liberal status quo, not for an actual general election.

 

Not obsessed, it's just...bizarre. My own political evolution feels more consistent. This is like a zig-zag through a maze of seemingly coherent, but incoherent thoughts. When some speculated she might be the Dems's Donald Trump, they may very well be right. But I don't think a Trump figure will ever win the presidency ever again. And if I were dems, I'd be a bit worried about this girl in the generals. NY may very well not be red, but they'll see her as so incompetent, and the post on a short-term basis that they'll be like "We can throw out the Repub in 2022."

 

Say it ain't so...but, you brought it up to shut my argument down, and I showed you where others you may support also have views today opposing what they said previously, so I ask again, what's your point, other than an Alinsky exercise?

 

Odd...did we elect her?

 

I brought it up to show it’s not unique to her.

 

So, a deflection then...Shes not the only pol to flip her stance for political purposes, but she's the one being discussed here, no?

 

Yah, but why? Are you going to start a thread about water being wet next?

 

Do I need your permission?.. That'd be a big no. Besides, your tactic failed. Would you like to discuss the topic now?

 

That a politicians views in college may change when they run for office?
Sure. It’s unsurprising.

 

Why all the deflection? Are you scared to admit that a losing platform of socialism is what your party is embracing?

 

I haven’t heard anyone advocate for full socialism, just more of it.

 

Fear? Is that a joke?

The right doesn't fear her, they love her. She's so incredibly stupid that the right is overjoyed that the left has embraced her. She can't answer basic questions without fumbling through her answers. Just look at her recent interviews.

 

Well you're half right on how things vary from state to state, as different states have different capabilities of what they are and are not able to produce, however the question of whether the US is able to implement single payer or not is a matter of how much the country as a whole can produce. The amount it would cost to cover every US citizen from all 50 states under a single payer plan would be around $2.7 trillion a year. The question of whether the US is capable of doing this or not is a matter of whether or not the US can produce that amount.

and the answer to that question is the US already is producing that amount. Our current healthcare expenses are around 3.2 trillion a year

Now as for Obamacare being a cheaper alternative.. I'm not sure where you heard that, but that was never the case. In fact, the state with the highest premiums in the county before Obamacare was implemented was none other than Massachusetts. The insurance mandates has always been the more expensive healthcare plan, this has been proven true both in the US and around the world, but especially in the US, as we are the only country in the world who has ran the insurance mandate plan at a profitable rate.