This is an interesting post but so much weaker than your usual stuff. Sooll take it step by step.
(1) Scandinavian countries. But let’s say they are too homogenous. Ok - some sort of socialism has existed in this country since the early 20th century progressive movement.
(2) that the 1 percent drive economic growth does not bear out in reality. It’s a nice opinion to have of course because some of them did indeed become or remain top one percent because they employ people. Of course this doesn’t take into consideration as to how many of them employ people even as a percentage point. Or how many of them live on capital gains. Or work for the government. Etc
(3) Venezuela is an oil rich nation. It’s current state isn’t because socialism is bad, it’s bevause corruption in all forms is bad.
Oh just for a shiny nickel i decided to respond on your behalf.
“Thanks for regurgitating left wing talking points”.
They giddily chip away at social programs. At first it was because the “welfare clause” wasn’t meant to protect the people. Now it’s just “who cares” - blacks are too dumb and buy into democrat plantation or illegals only come here for welfare so lets slash it all. It’s a weird pendulum… these arguments were around before… if only I can remember when…
Pretty standard fare. LIBs believe they are the smartest people in the room and that anyone who disagrees with them is just plain stupid. Thus the arrogant condescending attitude.
The very fact that DEMs refuse to acknowledge Venezuela’s problems are due to leftist socialist policies is very telling. In regards to corruption, it is inherent in a socialist government with all of the power centralized among a very small elite ruling class.
Oh my God…Galt’s Gulch all over again. Rand’s disciples simply will not go away.
No…the 1% absolutely do not drive economic growth. When you realize who the 1% by and large is and how they got to be the 1%, you’d disabuse yourself of this childish notion.
It does not make it better, just because a flim-flam man says 'oops my bad," after getting what he wanted, and wrecking that part of your life.
When a man lies to another person and that person loses thousands of dollars, he’s called a crook and a scam artist. When a politician lies to hundreds of millions, who collectively lose billions of doallrs, he’s called presidential.
Corruption and socialism are chicken and the egg argument. Is it that the politics in the country are inherently corrupt and the country happens to be socialist or is it the other way around.
You are oversimplifying something because your views of socialism are well… myopic.
Republicans have controlled the Senate and House for a good number of years during the Clinton, Bush and Reagan presidencies. Are you trying to absolve those presidents of any responsibility? Especially weird considering my post was in response to someone trying to blame Obama.
