@TeamGuns didn't say Trump is a racist. Agree that he's a populist.

@[WOLF] Zephyrum : Yea, I never said fox news supported trump. But they created the actual state of alienation that let trump rise.

Just one thing, about the recovery of Brazil, I'm not really sure we're gonna be able to do it. The only way the country will recover is if the confiance of the investors rises again, and that's not gonna happen any soon. The only way it could be better, would be if our current president got impeached or resigned, but there's no way that's happening, so...

About the left being the cause of the loss of influence a country has, I wouldn't be so sure. Bad management, overspending, corruption and government ineficiency aren't a common caracteristic of leftwing politicians, but rather a caracteristic of ALL politicians.

Some examples:
=> Republicans and their economy politics are responsible for the market meltdown the world suffered in 2008, but not only. The hole too big to fail policy, practiced by both democrats and republicans contributed to systemic flaws in the US economy that will, unfortunately, lead to more catastrophic crisis.
=> Roosevelt's new deal (leftist policy), put the US economy back on track in the 30s.
=> President lula's government in Brazil was very good for the economy and helped to fix many social problems the country had. His successor managed to do the opposit.

Edited 2/23/2016 01:33:22

Bernie supported bombing Milosevic, invading Afghanistan, keeping sanctions against Iraq in the nineties, a bill that gave more power over to Bush to further his goals and a plethora of interventionist things. If anything, he'll expand American influence with his plan to be all buddy buddy with Russia.

Passive my arse.

I think that developing economies like Brazil need capitalism. It creates the most wealth, and at that point, wealth is what matters. It is like America in the Industrial Revolution.

About the left being the cause of the loss of influence a country has, I wouldn't be so sure. Bad management, overspending, corruption and government ineficiency aren't a common caracteristic of leftwing politicians, but rather a caracteristic of ALL politicians.

Corruption does affect the influence area of a country, but having a leftist president is even more damaging than having a corrupt one in that aspect.

Well, not "leftist", but the general leftist stereotype - not a big fan of nationalism, has no plan on growing (just making use of the current resources) and that kind of stuff.

=> President lula's government in Brazil was very good for the economy and helped to fix many social problems the country had. His successor managed to do the opposit.

The reason our influence grew under him is because he took charge right after our economic problems were faltering down and our potential was just about to be fully unleashed. He didn't do badly, but then again, he wasn't nearly as good as people claim him to be.

Bernie supported bombing Milosevic, invading Afghanistan, keeping sanctions against Iraq in the nineties, a bill that gave more power over to Bush to further his goals and a plethora of interventionist things. If anything, he'll expand American influence with his plan to be all buddy buddy with Russia.

+1

About 99% of US Politicians are war hawks. There are literally no Doves in either the Republican or Democratic Party. All of them are supportive of the Military-Industrial Complex in one way or another. Just look at their voting records. I have yet to find a country that Rubio does not want to invade or declare an American threat to national security - Cuba, Russia, Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Palestine, China, Somalia, Libya, etc. The one thing I will give Bernie Sanders is he's a strong defender of civil liberties and supports dismantling the NSA, and he previously voted against the Patriot Act and the FISA Amendments of 2008.

Other US congressman who can be considered neo-isolationists or at least non-interventionist - Justin Amash, Rand Paul, Walter B. Jones Jr, G.K. Butterfield, Jared Polis, and Ron Wyden.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/2014-elections-senate-democrats-iraq-syria-111445?o=1

I am easily persuaded, but tell me how much good have Republicraps and Demofags have done the past 3 presidents. Awful, how have other political parties not arisen?

Edited 2/23/2016 04:10:08

Roughly 2/3 of The Us debt is to itself and its people from this like medicare etc. Public programs that really take a toll. China is like a tenth of total debt, we're in the most debt to them in regards to foreign countries.

So, whose to blame for debt? Capitalist outsourcing, or Socialist programs like welfare

^Both.

^edge warning

@[WOLF] Zephyrum

The reason our influence grew under him is because he took charge right after our economic problems were faltering down and our potential was just about to be fully unleashed. He didn't do badly, but then again, he wasn't nearly as good as people claim him to be.

Couldn't agree more, but still, his presidency was a success.



@Genghis

Us spending is absurd, I'll agree with you, and the gvt should cut spending. But not on the social issues. Just cut spending on the military and stop giving subsidies, and it will cover the us deficit easely.

It's not absurd to have social programs when you paid for them. Right now, the US taxes on the middle class is high, and there's low return for it.

Sweden, a country with many social programs, has a debt worth 40.6% of it's GDP. Was at 72.8% twenty years ago.
Denmark, a country with many social programs, has a debt worth 44.5% of it's GDP. Was at 72.6% twenty years ago.


The us has shitty social programs, and a debt worth over 100% of it's GDP, and has increased like hell on the last 20 years. Maybe the problem isn't the social programs huh?

Maybe the problem isn't the social programs huh?

They are quite a big modifier towards it - being the third most populous country in the world, it is a lot harder to keep everyone up to date with taxes and sustain the huge machine that is the american public welfare/healthcare. I just can't see those things working on a country with a big population.

Sweden has a population of 9 million people. Denmark is even farther behind - 5 million. For comparison, the city of São Paulo alone has 11 million, NYC has around 8 million. Gets quite unsustainable at these numbers.

Shouldn't administrative costs go down as the population goes up on a per capita basis?
The US spends sh*ttons on military(More than the next 14 countries combined), and our social programs are inefficient. We also hand out an absurd number of subsidies, these could probably be cut down without any real impact on an economy.

https://mises.org/library/sweden-poorer-you-think

http://www.eclectecon.net/2010/03/swedish-socialism-the-failure-of-elitist-planning-and-intervention.html

@MGSB get something more recent, 2002 and 2010 really man, you could probably get 2013 stats by now.

Trump's secret is that he will make America great again by building a wall in Canada.

@[wolf]japan77

Shouldn't administrative costs go down as the population goes up on a per capita basis?
The US spends sh*ttons on military(More than the next 14 countries combined), and our social programs are inefficient. We also hand out an absurd number of subsidies, these could probably be cut down without any real impact on an economy.

Yea, I believe it should too. But it depends on the efficiency of the current administration. In nordic countries, the efficiency is very high, while in the US, it's rather medium/low.


@Major General Smedley Butler

You just shared articles of two very neo-liberal sites. I wouldn't expect them to defend Sweden/Denmark. If anyone has a doubt about their success, just check on the UN sites...

Rank by HDI
1st - Norway
4th - Denmark

Edited 2/23/2016 18:02:20

Scotland could take #2 if it had independence. Socialism would become very popular, very fast, and the North Sea Oil would be an intensifier, that allows it to snowball up into the top 10.

I'm a pretty big fan of Norway, however their economic reliance on oil has always struck me as troublesome. What are they going to do when that runs out?

Scotland, if it ever becomes independent, will face down the same puzzle.

How I view it, is that Norway is actually a very stable country, with very stable services and devices, but it uses the oil as an intensifier, which makes it wealthy.

Natural resources do not create wealth.

Stability creates wealth.