If Democratic Socialism Is So Bad, Why Is Norway So Great?

[Bret Cahill]

"The initial problem with this argument is that Venezuela is not a real democracy, as President Nicolas Maduro has been blatantly rigging constitutional and electoral processes to cling to power. Venezuela may embrace socialism, but it definitely doesn't embrace democratic socialism."

http://theweek.com/articles/783700/democratic-socialism-bad-why-norway-great

As always, it's best to just stick with the terms and definitions Montesquieu used in _Spirit of Laws_.

Venezuela is a despotic society, i.e., low taxes, low education, no real elections [aka libertaria] etc. Norway is democratic - republican, i.e., high taxes, high education, elections, etc.

Terms like "capitalism" and "socialism" are of no benefit politically or policy wise.

Norway may be great but it isn't necessarily exactly the same great the U. S. wants to be.

By sticking with Montesquieu's terms and def'ns the U. S. can go the U.S. way.


Bret Cahill

[$27 TRILLION to PAY for KYOTO]

After taxes, the average Norgie takes home $1700 a month. To pay for housing and food, clothes in one of the most expensive places in Europe. Yeah, they sure have it good.

[JTEM is right]

Post by $27 TRILLION to PAY for KYOTO
After taxes, the average Norgie takes home $1700 a month. To pay for housing and food, clothes in one of the most expensive places in Europe. Yeah, they sure have it good.

The most expensive city in Norway is Oslo, with
average rents at 7,740 NOK -- roughly $956. This
comes to less than half the average rent in the
city of Boston.

I just spoke to a waitress last night and she was
telling me about her nephew. Seems that he somehow
climbed to the front of the line for a subsidized
apartment in the city of Boston for only $1,200 per
month. But he can't have it because it's only a
one bedroom, and the city will never give it to
him because he has a daughter, who hadn't been born
yet when his name got on the waiting list.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/175788662812

[$27 TRILLION to PAY for KYOTO]

Post by JTEM is right

Post by $27 TRILLION to PAY for KYOTO
After taxes, the average Norgie takes home $1700 a month. To pay for housing and food, clothes in one of the most expensive places in Europe. Yeah, they sure have it good.

The most expensive city in Norway is Oslo, with
average rents at 7,740 NOK -- roughly $956. This
comes to less than half the average rent in the
city of Boston.
I just spoke to a waitress last night and she was
telling me about her nephew. Seems that he somehow
climbed to the front of the line for a subsidized
apartment in the city of Boston for only $1,200 per
month. But he can't have it because it's only a
one bedroom, and the city will never give it to
him because he has a daughter, who hadn't been born
yet when his name got on the waiting list.
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/175788662812

RENT. You will never own there unless you are a rich man. Just one more reason not to emulate them.

[Catoni]

Post by Bret Cahill
"The initial problem with this argument is that Venezuela is not a real democracy, as President Nicolas Maduro has been blatantly rigging constitutional and electoral processes to cling to power. Venezuela may embrace socialism, but it definitely doesn't embrace democratic socialism."
http://theweek.com/articles/783700/democratic-socialism-bad-why-norway-great
As always, it's best to just stick with the terms and definitions Montesquieu used in _Spirit of Laws_.
Venezuela is a despotic society, i.e., low taxes, low education, no real elections [aka libertaria] etc. Norway is democratic - republican, i.e., high taxes, high education, elections, etc.
Terms like "capitalism" and "socialism" are of no benefit politically or policy wise.
Norway may be great but it isn't necessarily exactly the same great the U. S. wants to be.
By sticking with Montesquieu's terms and def'ns the U. S. can go the U.S. way.
Bret Cahill

Tak away Norway North Sea Oil income and see how long its Democratic Socialism society lasts...

[Bret Cahill]

Post by Catoni

Post by Bret Cahill
"The initial problem with this argument is that Venezuela is not a real democracy, as President Nicolas Maduro has been blatantly rigging constitutional and electoral processes to cling to power. Venezuela may embrace socialism, but it definitely doesn't embrace democratic socialism."
http://theweek.com/articles/783700/democratic-socialism-bad-why-norway-great
As always, it's best to just stick with the terms and definitions Montesquieu used in _Spirit of Laws_.
Venezuela is a despotic society, i.e., low taxes, low education, no real elections [aka libertaria] etc. Norway is democratic - republican, i.e., high taxes, high education, elections, etc.
Terms like "capitalism" and "socialism" are of no benefit politically or policy wise.
Norway may be great but it isn't necessarily exactly the same great the U. S. wants to be.
By sticking with Montesquieu's terms and def'ns the U. S. can go the U.S. way.
Bret Cahill

Tak away Norway North Sea Oil

Venezuela has more oil than the rest of the planet combined.

[Catoni]

Yeah, so how’s socialism working out in Venezuela? All that oil, and they can’t even find toilet paper on the store shelves.

[Bret Cahill]

Post by Catoni
Yeah, so how’s socialism working out in Venezuela?

Like all low tax, low education, low freedom, low elective gummint outbreaks of libertaria as perdicted by Montesquieu:

It is a general rule that taxes may be heavier in proportion to the liberty of the subject, and that there is a necessity for reducing them in proportion to the increase of slavery. This has always been and always will be the case. It is a rule derived from nature that never varies.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_Spirit_of_the_Laws#Book_III:_Of_the_Principles_of_the_Three_Kinds_of_Government

[$27 TRILLION to PAY for KYOTO]

Post by Catoni

Post by Bret Cahill
"The initial problem with this argument is that Venezuela is not a real democracy, as President Nicolas Maduro has been blatantly rigging constitutional and electoral processes to cling to power. Venezuela may embrace socialism, but it definitely doesn't embrace democratic socialism."
http://theweek.com/articles/783700/democratic-socialism-bad-why-norway-great
As always, it's best to just stick with the terms and definitions Montesquieu used in _Spirit of Laws_.
Venezuela is a despotic society, i.e., low taxes, low education, no real elections [aka libertaria] etc. Norway is democratic - republican, i.e., high taxes, high education, elections, etc.
Terms like "capitalism" and "socialism" are of no benefit politically or policy wise.
Norway may be great but it isn't necessarily exactly the same great the U. S. wants to be.
By sticking with Montesquieu's terms and def'ns the U. S. can go the U.S. way.
Bret Cahill

Tak away Norway North Sea Oil income and see how long its Democratic Socialism society lasts...

Especially flooded with 700,000 dirty illegals who cost the STATE $40,000 year each.

[Catoni]

If Norway’s so great...why aren’t you moving there?

[Catoni]

If you think that the more of our money the government steals from us in “taxes”, the better thing become, then why don’t you just send the government a certified bank check each year for, oh.....let’s say....98% of your gross yearly income? ?

[JTEM is right]

Post by Catoni
If you think that the more of our money the
government steals from us in “taxes”, the
better thing become

The problem isn't taxes, or the lack there of.
The problem is how they use the money they get.

In the past taxes were higher, and things were
better.

Things were better. There have always been ups
& downs, but overall things were better back
when taxes were higher. Yes, in the 50s and 60s.
And as terrible as the 70s were, poverty was
WAY lower when Jimmy Carter left office than after
eight years of Reagan tax cuts.

...the economy boomed in the 1990s after
Poppy Bush and then Clinton raised taxes, and
tanked under Dubya Bush & Obama...

Regressive taxation always hurts, never helps.
Even over taxing the rich hurts, but as things
stand they are WAY under taxed. The richest 1%
have more wealth than the bottom 90% of
Americans, yet pay disproportionately tiny
amount of the taxes.

That's bad.

The people who are ultimately responsible for
all jobs in America -- the customers -- are
subsidizing the wealthy. So we need to slash
taxes on the bottom 90% and raise them on the
top 1%... a lot.

We'll never see the 70% top income brackets
again, and in hindsight they were unfair, but
it's even more unfair now, only it's unfair
for the people who can least afford it.








-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/175784486027

[Bret Cahill]

Post by JTEM is right

Post by Catoni
If you think that the more of our money the
government steals from us in “taxes”, the
better thing become

The problem isn't taxes, or the lack there of.
The problem is how they use the money they get.
In the past taxes were higher, and things were
better.
Things were better. There have always been ups
& downs, but overall things were better back
when taxes were higher. Yes, in the 50s and 60s.
And as terrible as the 70s were, poverty was
WAY lower when Jimmy Carter left office than after
eight years of Reagan tax cuts.
...the economy boomed in the 1990s after
Poppy Bush and then Clinton raised taxes, and
tanked under Dubya Bush & Obama...
Regressive taxation always hurts, never helps.
Even over taxing the rich hurts, but as things
stand they are WAY under taxed. The richest 1%
have more wealth than the bottom 90% of
Americans, yet pay disproportionately tiny
amount of the taxes.
That's bad.
The people who are ultimately responsible for
all jobs in America -- the customers -- are
subsidizing the wealthy. So we need to slash
taxes on the bottom 90% and raise them on the
top 1%... a lot.
We'll never see the 70% top income brackets
again, and in hindsight they were unfair, but
it's even more unfair now, only it's unfair
for the people who can least afford it.

It is a general rule that taxes may be heavier in proportion to the liberty of the subject, and that there is a necessity for reducing them in proportion to the increase of slavery. This has always been and always will be the case. It is a rule derived from nature that never varies.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_Spirit_of_the_Laws#Book_III:_Of_the_Principles_of_the_Three_Kinds_of_Government

[Byker]

Post by Bret Cahill
"The initial problem with this argument is that Venezuela is not a real
democracy, as President Nicolas Maduro has been blatantly rigging
constitutional and electoral processes to cling to power. Venezuela may
embrace socialism, but it definitely doesn't embrace democratic
socialism."
http://theweek.com/articles/783700/democratic-socialism-bad-why-norway-great

Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Switzerland, Finland, Netherlands, Canada, New
Zealand, Australia: They are NOT true socialist. They all have market
economies along with heavy taxation to support a welfare state.

http://www.aei.org/publication/why-socialism-always-fails/

https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-of-scandinavian-socialism/

http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/11/scandinavia-isnt-a-socialist-paradise/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/10/25/european-socialism-why-america-doesnt-want-it/

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/10/15/bernie-sanders-scandinavia-not-socialist-utopia/lUk9N7dZotJRbvn8PosoIN/story.html

[abelard]

Post by Byker

Post by Bret Cahill
"The initial problem with this argument is that Venezuela is not a real
democracy, as President Nicolas Maduro has been blatantly rigging
constitutional and electoral processes to cling to power. Venezuela may
embrace socialism, but it definitely doesn't embrace democratic
socialism."
http://theweek.com/articles/783700/democratic-socialism-bad-why-norway-great

Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Switzerland, Finland, Netherlands, Canada, New
Zealand, Australia: They are NOT true socialist. They all have market
economies along with heavy taxation to support a welfare state.
http://www.aei.org/publication/why-socialism-always-fails/
https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-of-scandinavian-socialism/
http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/11/scandinavia-isnt-a-socialist-paradise/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/10/25/european-socialism-why-america-doesnt-want-it/
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/10/15/bernie-sanders-scandinavia-not-socialist-utopia/lUk9N7dZotJRbvn8PosoIN/story.html

norway has a small population, a lot of land and a dole economy funded
by oil riches

[Catoni]

Post by abelard
norway has a small population, a lot of land and a dole economy funded
by oil riches
--
www.abelard.org

If their oil income vanished overnight..... they'd be in big trouble.... How'd socialism work out for Greece and Venezuela.. ? ?

Quote:

"Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money. It’s quite a characteristic of them. They then start to nationalise everything, and people just do not like more and more nationalisation, and they’re now trying to control everything by other means. They’re progressively reducing the choice available to ordinary people."

- Prime Minister Lady Margaret Thatcher of Great Britain, 5 February 1976

[Super Turtle]

Well well well, never thought you would adopt the white nationalist agenda.

Let’s see:

Norway has lower business taxes and less regulations then USA. (Kind of what Trump is suggesting – right???).

They have a monolithic WHITE high IQ population. (Compare that to say Haiti, or say Guinea (67). That means the average adult has the IQ of a 12 year old. You think such a country can go to the moon? That explains why these countries were cooking dinner with camel dung while we in the west (with high IQ) were walking on the moon.
year old).

So Norway did not adopt diversity, but remained a VERY nationalist primary WHITE population. Cleary this shows that a high education white nation with high IQ is the way to go.

The have oil – and that keeps the treasury full of money. And by not allowing a bunch of non-white “low” IQ people that would rather live off the government dole, such a non-diverse high IQ popular is a dream for the KKK come true – it what THEY been saying all along is the solution to a nation.

So the high the IQ, and less diverse the country is (to preserve their culture of hard work and high IQ) the better off they are.

And toss in why some middle east countries make money (because of oil), then you have the exact formula as to why they are so well off.

Let’s summarize this again:

Nearly all white, high IQ, non-diverse.

Very high level of educated population (due to high IQ).

Lower business taxes and less regulations the USA.
(USA business tax rate averages about = 30%. Adding taxes at state level can push this to 35%.

Norway = 23%.

(So remember, USA has higher taxes then Sweden, Norway, France, Italy and MOST countries for business). So the USA tends to be more socialist in their policies towards business then Norway, or most of Europe.

Great to see you jump on KKK and Trumps agenda here – and yes such a setup most certainly works rather well.

So lower taxes for business then the USA!!! (Yup sounds like Trump)

No diversity and immigration to destroy their country (yup sounds like Trump).

Built up their own oil industry (yup, sounds like Trump – just look at California – they have gobs of energy but can’t pay their bills because the greens don’t allow energy production, but Norway??? Oh ya baby – grab that oil!!! – we are rich!!!!).


As to some asking why not move to Norway? Golly, you dam right I would – it likely one of the best places right now, and because they did not “diversity” their population, the people are one of the best people you will ever meet. (And the women are beyond hot!).

Even better?

Of all the languages that English speaking can learn, Norwegian is the MOST easy to adopt and learn (if your first language or only language is English). So Norwegian is easier then French German, or even Spanish to learn.

So if you believe in a superior white population, highly education people, high IQ people, and them having rejected diversity to dilute their IQ, then Norway is your dream ticket.

Super Turtle.