patrick.net

How much do they pay for military service and how would that change if US spending was brought down in alignment with other socialist nations?

This is why new spending on national health care would not be a drag on the economy or hurt taxpayers. It would simplify and reduce the cost of a bloated system that is a miserable experience for many people.

See, here is why Americans don't like socialism-see what they get for almost the same taxes. What guarantee is there that we will get anything more for higher taxes??
Dan8267 says

When I lived in Finland, as a middle-class citizen I paid income tax at a rate not much higher than what I now pay in New York City

Dan8267 says

But, as an example, here are some of the things I personally got in return for my taxes: nearly a full year of paid parental leave for each child (plus a smaller monthly payment for an additional two years, were I or the father of my child to choose to stay at home with our child longer), affordable high-quality day care for my kids, one of the world’s best public K-12 education systems, free college, free graduate school, nearly free world-class health care delivered through a pretty decent universal network, and a full year of partially paid disability leave

Dan8267 says

Conservatives don't know shit about socialism It helps individual self-interest

This is an interesting topic that is worth digging deeper. There is significant data that shows the Nordic countries (especially Denmark) are better on many standard economic benchmarks. Specifically - health care spending, incarceration rate, homicides, wages. The book Spirit Level by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett does an amazing job of detailing why wealth and income equality within countries is significantly correlated with health, economic and educational well-being in those countries.

Reasonable conservatives will look at all this overwhelming evidence. They will conclude that USA indeed has a wealth inequality problem that is created and perpetuated by entrenched corporate interests with the government, where the government now works for the highest corporate bidder. The wealth inequality does not exist because these "job creators" are out creating more awesome stuff LMAO, it is because of the rents and monopolies that the corporations have well established co-opting the government and the justice system. I consider Eisenhower to be a reasonable conservative, but he would be regarded as a raging leftist today -- as Chomsky shrewdly points out the political climate we live in. Facts don't matter, perception is everything - Colbert.

Dan8267 says

everyone looks alike, thinks alike, and belongs to a big extended family. This, in turn, makes Nordic citizens willing to sacrifice their own interests to help their neighbors. Americans don’t feel a similar kinship with other Americans, I’m told, and thus will never sacrifice their own interests for the common good.

As Dean Baker points out in his data comparison: "Of course, the institutions in these countries cannot simply be transferred to the United States, even if it was desirable. Countries have their own institutional dynamics which cannot simply be wished away. However, it is useful to get a clear picture of these countries just to see whether the systems they have in place seem to be working there.. In addition to the institutional dynamic aspect, I would also point out that Americans significantly distrust the government (and for good reasons). The corruption and revolving door between Wall Street and Washington has significantly dented citizen confidence in public officials.

There are political studies done that substantiate the reasoning that diversity undermines social cohesion, especially where there is little to no social contact between the diverse communities. From the reference paper: Most of the empirical literature on this subject finds that the relationship between diversity and trust is negative - the more diverse a community is, the less likely individuals in it are to be trusting. The trend seems to hold especially strong for the US

Science clearly tells that we are all made of star stuff. However to steer away from the domination of the lizard brains within all of us -- requires individual effort on the part of the reasoning and logical aspects of the very same brains. On the other hand, the emotional appeal to the lizard brains is strong and amplified by the divisive rhetoric that gets all the media attention. The dominating nature of the complex adaptive system creates a field of energy (positive or negative) that can prevail for prolonged periods of time. For instance, the negative connotations related to the word socialism is very deeply ingrained in the American psyche.

Bernie is a honest public official and I think there are only a handful of people in politics like him who are not bought and paid for. However the reality is -- he is fighting an uphill battle against moneyed interests, significant ignorance among the populace regarding the root cause of issues and extreme divisive rhetoric that is bringing out the worst of American society. He is an idealist and the young people supporting him also have similar mindset, so I'm sure they believe it is a battle worth fighting. Looking at the human race though (not just Americans), I'm skeptical.

“Scratch any cynic and you will find a disappointed idealist.” - Carlin

lostand confused says

What guarantee is there that we will get anything more for higher taxes??

Not voting Republican.

uomo_senza_nome_0 says

There is significant data that shows the Nordic countries (especially Denmark) are better on many standard economic benchmarks. Specifically - health care spending, incarceration rate, homicides, wages.

Does Denmark has the same % of blacks and Mexicans that the US has? I didn't think so. Try comparing apples to apples next time.

zzyzzx says

Does Denmark has the same % of blacks and Mexicans that the US has? I didn't think so. Try comparing apples to apples next time.

They are both OECD countries, so it is worth comparing.
If you read my entire comment, I link to political studies that show diversity undermines social cohesion -- especially in the US.

Dan8267 says

Not voting Republican

Obama raised taxes as did Bush the elder -what did we get from the raised taxes?

lostand confused says

Obama raised taxes as did Bush the elder -what did we get from the raised taxes?

Less debt than we would have taken on had we left the Bush tax cuts in place.

zzyzzx says

uomo_senza_nome_0 says

There is significant data that shows the Nordic countries (especially Denmark) are better on many standard economic benchmarks. Specifically - health care spending, incarceration rate, homicides, wages.

Does Denmark has the same % of blacks and Mexicans that the US has? I didn't think so. Try comparing apples to apples next time.

White people in America aren't poor, don't go to jail or commit murder. What an amazing country.

dodgerfanjohn says

How much do they pay for military service and how would that change if US spending was brought down in alignment with other socialist nations?

And how would it change if Finland had a 300 plus million combination of every nationality that ever existed on the earth?

lostand confused says

Obama raised taxes as did Bush the elder -what did we get from the raised taxes?

War, not socialism. It's not enough to "raise taxes". Those taxes need to be spent on social programs not military takeovers. In fact, if we cut warfare spending we could double social spending while LOWERING taxes.

Just because Republicans waste tax revenue does not mean tax revenue has to be wasted. Just don't vote Republican.

P N Dr Lo R says

And how would it change if Finland had a 300 plus million combination of every nationality that ever existed on the earth?

This was answered in the original post and the article. One must actually read to understand.

Dan8267 says

Nordic countries are the way they are, I’m told, because they are small, homogeneous “nanny states” where everyone looks alike, thinks alike, and belongs to a big extended family. This, in turn, makes Nordic citizens willing to sacrifice their own interests to help their neighbors. Americans don’t feel a similar kinship with other Americans, I’m told, and thus will never sacrifice their own interests for the common good. What this is mostly taken to mean is that Americans will never, ever agree to pay higher taxes to provide universal social services, as the Nordics do. Thus Bernie Sanders, and anyone else in the U.S. who brings up Nordic countries as an example for America, is living in la-la land.

But this vision of homogenous, altruistic Nordic lands is mostly a fantasy. The choices Nordic countries have made have little to do with altruism or kinship. Rather, Nordic people have made their decisions out of self-interest. Nordic nations offer their citizens—all of their citizens, but especially the middle class—high-quality services that save people a lot of money, time, and trouble. This is what Americans fail to understand: My taxes in Finland were used to pay for top-notch services for me.

Dan8267 says

A Nordic person myself, I left my native Finland seven years ago and moved to the U.S.

The puzzlement (a term borrowed from Judge Wopner) is, why would you leave a place of such benevolence for a country which until fairly recently was capitalistic and conservative, a traditional society that was religiously observant in the Judeo-Christian traditions, all of which you hate, and for which you equate a moral equivalence no better than the Soviet Union? It is true that no other country, with our Constitution and Declaration of Independence, now comprising 300 million plus individuals from every nationality and tradition, has ever existed on the face of the earth before, and seems to have done a pretty good job thus far, even with all our faults enumerated endlessly by the rest of the world.

Dan8267 says

free college, free graduate school, nearly free world-class health care

Someone does pay for them.

uomo_senza_nome_0 says

I consider Eisenhower to be a reasonable conservative....

I Liked your comment, but I found ironic your inclusion of Eisenhower. He delivered in WWII, but struggled as President, and IMO a reason Scandinavian countries have pulled ahead is because of legislation he signed. At the behest of the Knights of Columbus (expressly not a charity, they do the Pope's dirty work in America, along with alleged money laundering as depicted in Godfather III), Eisenhower committed to making America more religious. He amended the pledge of allegiance to insert "under God" ironically right between "one nation" and "indivisible." He also agreed to require that all currency must say "In God We Trust," a slogan that the founders had specifically rejected because it was too religious. (They chose instead "annuit coeptis," because it had 13 letters representing the 13 founding states, and it represented the type of compromise that they preferred: "the eye of providence is watching," which can mean different things to different people.) The change to the Pledge was particularly sad because the Pledge had been adopted while the generation that lived through the Civil War yet lived: they enacted it to ensure "one nation indivisible" so that America's bloodiest war would never happen again. That war too resulted largely from religion, which produced a failure to compromise. "Wars begin when the warring powers disagree about which is the stronger; they end when a consensus has been reached." Since many in the north and south thought they had an omnipotent god on their side, they failed to foresee the enormous cost of the war, and they failed to make a deal to end slavery while preserving the Union. Since Eisenhower put "under God" ahead of indivisible, America has become more divided along religious lines, just as the founders tried to avoid. Scandinavia has become less religious and more cooperative, while America and the Muslim world have become more religious and bellicose, because religion tends to divide people against each other: believers vs "infidels" who reject the believers' counterfactual beliefs. Eisenhower distinguished himself in Army planning because he was great at logistics, and he was definitely patriotic, but he lacked the subtle conceptual fluency to see that injecting religion into the Pledge and the currency would backfire, as it did from the start.

YesYNot says

Less debt than we would have taken on had we left the Bush tax cuts in place

Obama added 10trillion in debt-the worst on record.

curious2 says

America and the Muslim world have become more religious and bellicose, because religion tends to divide people against each other, believers vs "infidels" who reject the believers' counterfactual beliefs.

"Muslim" is the operative word.

P N Dr Lo R says

"Muslim" is the operative word.

Islam is more bellicose than Christianity, yes, but either combined with government can be more lethal than combining ammonia with chlorine. The operative difference is that Christianity does not require believers to impose their doctrine via government, while Islam does. A significant number of Christians do unfortunately vote to impose their doctrine via government, empowering and enriching charlatans (e.g. Michelle Hucksterbee), but most can distinguish between religion and politics, as Christian doctrine allows believers to do that. The founders learned well the lessons of the 30 Years War and the Reformation and various other intra-Christian troubles, and compromised to spare their posterity that pain.

curious2 says

Christianity does not require believers to impose their doctrine via government, while Islam does

Islam IS the government--a theocracy. While Christianity has an influence--after all, we are part of what's called Christendom, as is the rest of the West--Christianity is not the government.

curious2 says

but I found ironic your inclusion of Eisenhower.

I said that primarily in reference to Chomsky's remarks about how far right the political climate has shifted.
anyone who questions the programs of the New Deal is just not part of American political life.

Not that I am fan of Eisenhower.
I mean look at the situation now. Ah, the bloody socialists craving for free crap LMAO.

Take away the rampant blond bush, and the Nordic Socialist Myth evaporates!

lostand confused says

Obama added 10trillion in debt-the worst on record.

This is clearly due to costs that Bush obligated us with and inheriting an economy that was in the biggest hole in 80 yrs. In other words, if you inherit the biggest deficit on record, it is likely you will increase the debt the most unless you can overcome the inertia that the previous president caused.

Dan8267 says

Just because Republicans waste tax revenue does not mean tax revenue has to be wasted.

Out here in CA it's the Democratic senators and politcians stealing all the money and handing them over to themselves or their inner circle. We don't got Republicans here.

See Dan, if you weren't so naive you'd learn long ago that all politicians are crooks who are just interested in stealing from you, the only difference is a sales point they get you with.

FortWayne says

See Dan, if you weren't so naive you'd learn long ago that all politicians are crooks who are just interested in stealing from you

Bernie Sanders disproves that theory.

curious2 says

Eisenhower committed to making America more religious. He amended the pledge of allegiance to insert "under God" ironically right between "one nation" and "indivisible." He also agreed to require that all currency must say "In God We Trust,"

You're making this sound like an indictment, but in the context of the mid-50's when this occurred (1954), it would not have seemed out of place at all. In the 50's, America was a bulwark of Christian belief and observance, not at all offended by public expressions of faith, in fact they expected it--prayers at football games, before civic meetings, in public schools. Islam would not have had a chance of interjecting itself into our society. We listened to Bible verses read over the PA system and it was a great honor to be called to the office to read the verse as I was in junior high one day in 1956. Then the principal added a few words of devotional and we were off to classes for the day. No one could ever have imagined that in 62 years, really more like barely 50, references to Judeo-Christian beliefs or the display of the Ten Commanment tablets would cause appoplexy. What America was like in those days conformed much more realistically to what America had always been--the way it is today is really the one that is aberrant. The Civil Rights era righted many of the wrongs that had existed from America's inception, but it just wasn't enough to satisfy everyone. From the mid-60's on, in one way or another, the institutions that had made America strong were undermined--the family, the churches, the schools, the legal system, and over the decades more and more people developed an actual loathing of America. Many of the first wave of Baby Boomers discarded the Protestant, Catholic and Jewish faiths in which they'd been raised for self-help panaceas and Eastern gurus and religions. This went into overdrive in Europe which was already religiously shaky by the 50's and just went downhill from there. It was in this environment that Islam, which had always had animosity towards those who were not Muslim, began making inroads into the Western society that had begun hating itself and its heritage and didn't believe in anything anymore except that the state was the highest source of benevolence. There shouldn't be any surprise, then, that Islam is coming in to fill the vacuum left by the loss of strong belief and practice of Judeo-Christianity by Westeners.

P N Dr Lo R says

In the 50's, America was a bulwark of Christian belief and observance

The Gospel According to Mathew 19:16-30

16And behold, a man came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” 17And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” 18He said to him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, 19Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 20The young man said to him, “All these I have kept. What do I still lack?” 21Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” 22When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.

23And Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly, I say to you, only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven. 24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” 25When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?” 26But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” 27Then Peter said in reply, “See, we have left everything and followed you. What then will we have?” 28Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, in the new world,b when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life. 30But many who are first will be last, and the last first.

1950s America is incompatible with Christianity, a religion that demands you give up all your wealth and possessions to follow the lord, who by the way, strongly believed that one should had to give up all worldly possessions to follow god. Put simply, Christianity and capitalism are antithetical and mutually exclusive.

P N Dr Lo R says

Islam is coming in to fill the vacuum

Islam isn't primarily coming in on its own though, as it's rather being mostly imported via invade & invite. NATO and our Saudi "allies" are bombing and invading Syria to pump explosive gas and Muslims into NATO countries. The Pope and Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats are particularly adamant that Europe must import Muslims.

Respectfully, you overestimate the appeal of religion in general and Christianity in particular, and its role among America's founders. Many of the founders were Deists, and some (e.g. Jefferson) were especially critical of Christianity. Others, e.g. Ben Franklin, became less religious throughout their lives; asked in his 80s whether he believed in the purported divinity of Jesus, Franklin replied politely but refused to answer. Most Europeans are secular and don't want to convert to Islam, but they have been misled into welcoming it into their countries. It serves TPTB as Thunderlips11 described. There isn't a widespread hunger for religion among the irreligious, and few Europeans and Americans are converting to Islam.

The abuse of public schools as if they were churches was not a good thing. The 1950s were paradoxically hyper-capitalist and hyper-Christian, despite the obvious contradictions between capitalism and Christianity. Some people (especially closet cases like Forthood/Fortwayne) sucked up that stuff eagerly, but many people resented it, which is why it's gone now. You have a point about Black Muslim separatism rebelling against everything white American, but that chapter ended mostly with the assassination of Malcolm X by his fellow Black Muslims. (Oakland had recently a widely reported story involving "Your Black Muslim Bakery," so I recognize they haven't all gone away, but they aren't getting many converts anymore.) Imposing one set of counter-factual beliefs is not a good answer to another set of counter-factual beliefs, as the history of religious warfare demonstrates.

Jazz says:
"If Nordic countries don't have the same % of blacks and Mexicans, from where do Nordic countries build their leisure class from slave labor to man factories, harvest crops? perform basic domestic services, construct and maintain estates, raise children? They still have rich people don't they?

You know, who does all those jobs that never pay enough and are never stable enough to enjoy a respectable status in the social pecking order, or even in the eyes of penalty enforcers?"

I can't figure out who needs more help. Jazz or Gary?

Dan8267 says

FortWayne says

See Dan, if you weren't so naive you'd learn long ago that all politicians are crooks who are just interested in stealing from you

Bernie Sanders disproves that theory.

Let's look at how Bernie Sanders spent those campaign donation dollars in March. You will see $810k to his campaign manager, $19k to his relatives, and $401.96 for victory party supplies:

zzyzzx says

You will see $810k to his campaign manager

Makes sense. That's the guy who would be spending most of the campaign dollars on ads.

zzyzzx says

$19k to his relatives

As nepotism or for campaign expenses? It's hardly unusual that anyone running for office includes family members on their campaign efforts. If your own family doesn't support your run why would anyone else? You have offered no evidence that these payments were used for anything but legitimate campaign expenses like signs, transportation, lodging, and meeting space rentals. Nothing suspicious there so far.

zzyzzx says

nd $401.96 for victory party supplies

Pretty damn cheap victory party.

US Congress Spends $2 Million On Coffee & Doughnuts. Even cops don't spend that much on doughnuts.

The Sunlight Foundation found that expensive catering was truly a bipartisan effort, with leaders hosting their own members. Republican House Speaker John Boehner spent $64,000. Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi spent $61,000. and No. 2 Democrat Steny Hoyer spent $52,000.

The biggest spender in the House was No. 3 Republican Kevin McCarthy of California. On his Facebook page, pictures of meetings include fruit, bagels, croissants and coffee.

McCarthy's 2012 grand total - $95,000, with an additional $4,000 being spent on bottled water - was enough to pay the salaries of two mid-level staffers on Capitol Hill.

So your numbers show how much restraint Bernie has and how greatly he differs from the fat cats in Washington.

uomo_senza_nome_0 says

the more diverse a community is, the less likely individuals in it are to be trusting. The trend seems to hold especially strong for the US

I don't believe this, and I've seen plenty of evidence refuting it. Of course at times it is true, that people are less likely to trust people that are different than people that are the same.

The argument to this is that at some point a diverse community that has always been diverse no longer sees people as different (and not worthy of trust), just because their ethnicity is different. As evidence I would cite the case of irish, italian, jewish or asian immigrants. Some of these may be taking longer than others to change from being untrustworthy others, to just another member of the community, as worthy of trust as anyone, once you get to know them.

IT's easy to see among young children in diverse groups (given all come from healthy families of same (minimum) economic level), that the level of trust given is not dependent on ethnicity.

IT's when ethnic differences are combined with significant economic differences that this difference in trust level arises.

Solving this is made more difficult by the fact that it s not understood. Even if well understood and accepted it would still be difficult(or impossible in the medium term) to solve it worldwide, but within the U.S. we have the possibility of getting there one day.

In the paper, where the authors claim: the more diverse a community is, the less likely individuals in it are to be trusting. The trend seems to hold especially strong for the US. They are establishing correlation, not causation.

Significant economic differences already exists in the US as a precursor, which in some cases prevents diversity from occurring (urban spatial segregation, as an example). In other cases, increased diversity makes the trust level worse when combined with wealth inequality. Wealth inequality due to institutional privilege is a significant problem in the US which has pernicious effects. The data shown in the book Spirit Level speaks for itself.

marcus says

Solving this is made more difficult by the fact that it s not understood or accepted.

Right, completely agree. As you can already see in many asinine posts on pat.net
However restoring trust in the government is another significant problem in the US.
In a kingdom of crime, there is only a veneer of justice.

marcus says

Even if well understood and accepted it would still be difficult(or impossible in the medium term) to solve it worldwide, but within the U.S. we have the possibility of getting there one day.

There's a cynic in me that has given up on humans :)
We have mucked up so much on this planet.
And for human aspects such as greed and lack of empathy: there is no upper bound.

uomo_senza_nome_0 says

They are establishing correlation, not causation

Okay, but if there no mention of possible lurking or confounding variables, then causation will be inferred by many.

uomo_senza_nome_0 says

And for human aspects such as greed and lack of empathy: there is no upper bound

Yeah, I know. It would seem some major changes have to occur before some problems get solved.

Dan8267 says

1950s America is incompatible with Christianity, a religion that demands you give up all your wealth

It's perfectly compatible. In order to have wealth it has to be created and that's what 50's American capitalism was all about. That would be like the Soviet Union giving scriptural advice from its atheistic soul to Capitalist Americans who are driving out of dealerships in multi-colored, chrome and tail-finned cars while the USSR's atheists are standing in line for their daily ration of stale bread.

Another thing about capitalism at any time, it seems to be the only economic system that can provide automobiles in consistently huge quantities and exactly to the buyers' desires. A car is the next most expensive item you will purchase except for your home and capitalism seems to do the best job of making them. Decade after decade America puts the rest of the world on wheels with few exceptions such as Japan and Germany and significantly South Korea--today the Buick is considered a status symbol in Communist China. I can't help think how ironic it is that after 57 years, Cubans are still driving the icons of American 50's capitalism because within their socialist scheme they couldn't develop a usable, desirable automobile of their own.

P N Dr Lo R says

It's perfectly compatible.

Capitalism and wealth accumulation is most certainly not compatible with the teachings, which come directly from your god, that you must give up all your possessions to the poor to follow Jesus. There's no way you can square that circle. Jesus did not want people to have wealth as he believed material goods interfere with closeness to god. Hence the words "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.". But hey, since when did Christians ever follow the teachings of Christ?