16 people on things they couldn't believe about America until they moved here

[gambit]

Learn the meaning of the world communist.

I fled from one. Then I played tourist in one -- East Germany. I probably know more about communism and Marxism than you do.

My views are that the same as that of John Maynard Keynes. Do you have any ****in clue who he was? I seriously doubt it. He was one of the greatest economists who ever lived and is hardly called a communist. The policies used to lift the US out of the great depression of 1930 were based on his theories. Communism is a philosophy that aims to create a classless state where the means of production are owned by the proletarian. Providing healthcare doesn't make one a communist , you noob. Canada provides free healthcare to it's citizens , is it a communist country?

Taken as far as some would like, then yes, the country would not have a Keynesian economy but a communist one.

And why is the government responsible you ask? Well , because you pay taxes to them. Government is supposed to use taxes to make the life better for citizens. What else do you want to privatize other than health care, commy hater? Yeah , let's outsource the court and justice system to Walmart. Good ****in luck winning a case against them the next time one of their CEO's paralyses you by running over you with his BMW. It seems you have been watching too many videos of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. Anyone who opposes a totally free market seems like a communist to you.

How? Who are YOU to say you know better than me for what matters to me? Do not try to weasel out of the question by saying you are not the government, etc..etc...

The foundation of your argument is that there is ALWAYS someone who know what is better for me than I do for myself, and amazingly enough, it is always the government. Am I a commie-hater? You bet. And I bet you have never experience even a little bit of what applied communism does to the human condition.

Health care is a broad umbrella. So answer the questions: If you support the government taking care of your health, do you support the government telling you what to eat, drink, and who to marry? Those things affect your health, no?

Cowards like you always run when the issue gets a bit too close. You are good at criticizing others but that is about it.

 

[forcetrip]

I SERIOUSLY doubt that. The rich can afford the highest levels of luxury anywhere. When rich people get sick, do they fly to Pakistan or the U.S. ? When the rich want to play, do they fly to Pakistan ? Hardly.

You are going about this all wrong. The quality of life is way better in third world countries cause you can afford the foreign stuff which can be assembled by a fleet of cheap exploitable labour. You will not understand the ease having 4 extra hands is. Professionally I can get a lot more done here than in the States. Plus I have a huge chunk of time for myself . I earn at least 10 times less than what I was making in the US, but somehow I can afford 10 times more things without being in debt.

There are the obvious problems as well, like idiot population, unskilled workers and hard to obtain specific items all the expected problems of a developing country.

If I would get sick, there are a bunch of hospitals I visit. Best is the 20 cent one near my house with decent doctors who can write prescriptions for everyday cold or headache. They did a pretty decent job with stitches as well. that cost a bit more, like a dollar and 35 cents I think. Then there are top of the line hospitals dealing with the best medical facilities like Aga Khan. Now if I needed a transplant of some kind I could very well afford to fly to Europe or the US.

I now take two vacations a year usually around the world somewhere compared to the one vacation within the US, Mexica or Canada.

Your comments just ooze of being somewhat confined to the world of the US. Move around and see what the world is about. Not everyone shits in a hole, and those who do matter very little to those who do not.

 

[sarthak]

I fled from one. Then I played tourist in one -- East Germany. I probably know more about communism and Marxism than you do.


Taken as far as some would like, then yes, the country would not have a Keynesian economy but a communist one.


How? Who are YOU to say you know better than me for what matters to me? Do not try to weasel out of the question by saying you are not the government, etc..etc...

The foundation of your argument is that there is ALWAYS someone who know what is better for me than I do for myself, and amazingly enough, it is always the government. Am I a commie-hater? You bet. And I bet you have never experience even a little bit of what applied communism does to the human condition.

Health care is a broad umbrella. So answer the questions: If you support the government taking care of your health, do you support the government telling you what to eat, drink, and who to marry? Those things affect your health, no?

Cowards like you always run when the issue gets a bit too close. You are good at criticizing others but that is about it.

LOL , am I a coward? I am having this argument for my amusement , just so you know. Loosing an argument to you or not being able to answer your question will affect my life as much as the piss that comes out of my dick every now and then. So no one's running away from your question. It's just that your question is too retarded to even elicit a rational answer.You are extremely confused between the terms " rights" , "roles" and "duties". A government telling you what to eat, drink , not to smoke and who to marry etc infringes on your human rights and is not acceptable. A government can try to reduce the externalities by measures like taxing , like it does with cigarettes , or promoting a healthy lifestyle through ads , but nothing more. On the other hand , it's the "duty" of the government to provide you with healthcare , roads , a good justice system etc because you pay taxes to it. That's how economic systems have been working ever since ancient times . People payed taxes to the King/monarch and were provided protection from hostiles , roads , wells for water , etc. However ,this simple concept seems to totally elude you. Government is supposed to provide some bare minimum things like healthcare for the well being of its citizens and is supposed to restrict the free marketing of products like cocaine and meth again for the same reasons. A totally free market would lead to exceptionally high prices for some beneficial things - like life saving drugs and very low prices for some extremely bad things - like crack cocaine that Rob Ford smokes. Also , the government is supposed to provide things like roads and infrastructure because if these things were left to a private corporation , roads and infrastructure would only be built where the private firm thinks would benefit from them. So no roads would be built in many small towns and villages.

But again , i cannot change your overly narrow minded views due to your fear or bad experiences with communism. The cold war is finished , get over it. A person who supports some government intervention in the economy is not a communist. Also, communism , if followed by its dictionary meaning isn't even a bad thing. It's simply a system where the means of production are owned by the proletarian , or working class. If you were living in a "by the oxford dict" communist country , it would mean living a country where everyone has exactly the same amount of money and resources, doesn't seem too bad to me. However ,sadly , in human history , people who have called themselves communist have just been oppressive dictators and assigned a new meaning to that word. Stalin , Kim Jong Il , Mao were oppressive dictators and nothing more. They combined an oppressive, one party political system with socialist policies and started calling themselves communist.

 

[gambit]

LOL , am I a coward?

Yes, you are.

I am having this argument for my amusement , just so you know.

And I am laughing at you.

It's just that your question is too retarded to even elicit a rational answer.

Code for 'I have no answer.'

You are extremely confused between the terms " rights" , "roles" and "duties". A government telling you what to eat, drink , not to smoke and who to marry etc infringes on your human rights and is not acceptable. A government can try to reduce the externalities by measures like taxing , like it does with cigarettes , or promoting a healthy lifestyle through ads , but nothing more. On the other hand , it's the "duty" of the government to provide you with healthcare , roads , a good justice system etc because you pay taxes to it. That's how economic systems have been working ever since ancient times . People payed taxes to the King/monarch and were provided protection from hostiles , roads , wells for water , etc. However ,this simple concept seems to totally elude you. Government is supposed to provide some bare minimum things like healthcare for the well being of its citizens and is supposed to restrict the free marketing of products like cocaine and meth again for the same reasons. A totally free market would lead to exceptionally high prices for some beneficial things - like life saving drugs and very low prices for some extremely bad things - like crack cocaine that Rob Ford smokes. Also , the government is supposed to provide things like roads and infrastructure because if these things were left to a private corporation , roads and infrastructure would only be built where the private firm thinks would benefit from them. So no roads would be built in many small towns and villages.

Why is it a duty? Because we paid taxes. Fair enough. But it is also fair FOR THE GOVERNMENT to say: 'That since you abdicated your own duty to me, pretty much entirely, I have the right to infringe upon certain freedoms that are inherent within that issue that you granted to me by the same abdication.'

Anything that is a burden or a duty is always accompanied by responsibilities and with responsibilities comes AUTHORITY. Do you understand? When we have children, we gave ourselves the duty of caring for them and with that burden, moral and physical, comes responsibilities to provide them with more than just basic needs and in that process, we gave ourselves the authority to control certain rights and freedoms. Control includes allowances and restrictions.

So if you support the government in taking over your health care, which I doubt you even know what that entails, you have no choice but to support the government's right to dictate, not merely promote, what you eat, drink, and who to marry. Admit it, you are a communist.

 

[livingdead]

@gambit I hope you are not advocating choice over everything that you live in society, law and order for example is a duty of collective not individual (else it will cause chaos).
Basically you two are arguing to what level govt (representitive of a society) should be involved in our life. For most of us, the least the better.
Issue is to find that balance, without taking away too much personal freedom.

quick question to you, are you fundamentally against taxation system too?

 

[gambit]

But again , i cannot change your overly narrow minded views due to your fear or bad experiences with communism. The cold war is finished , get over it. A person who supports some government intervention in the economy is not a communist. Also, communism , if followed by its dictionary meaning isn't even a bad thing. It's simply a system where the means of production are owned by the proletarian , or working class. If you were living in a "by the oxford dict" communist country , it would mean living a country where everyone has exactly the same amount of money and resources, doesn't seem too bad to me. However ,sadly , in human history , people who have called themselves communist have just been oppressive dictators and assigned a new meaning to that word. Stalin , Kim Jong Il , Mao were oppressive dictators and nothing more. They combined an oppressive, one party political system with socialist policies and started calling themselves communist.

And you are telling us you are not a communist?

So you agree with Marx: From each according to his abilities. To each according to his needs.

Yeah...To date, there are only two forms of successful Marxist communities: The family and the monastery. The latter includes the nunnery.

The family is the perfect paternalism, the mythical 'benevolent dictator' that communists always dreams about, especially each seeing himself in that seat.

The monastery is VOLUNTARY, meaning no one forced anyone to live according to Marxism.

It does not matter if Marx is imposed or not, for communists, the end always justifies the means. So if the masses have only the minimum each man/woman need to survive, what you complaining about Stalin or Kim or Mao?

Is there any wonder why the simple microwave oven cannot come out of a communist country?

@gambit I hope you are not advocating choice over everything that you live in society, law and order for example is a duty of collective not individual (else it will cause chaos).
Basically you two are arguing to what level govt (representitive of a society) should be involved in our life. For most of us, the least the better.
Issue is to find that balance, without taking away too much personal freedom.

quick question to you, are you fundamentally against taxation system too?

So am I. But health care is not what the government should be doing. The greater the degree of separation from the self, the more tolerant we are in abdicating some duties and responsibilities to a third party, especially when there are things that are unpredictable like crime or international conflicts that escalate to warfare.

Health care is not one or two or three degrees away. It is immediate to the physical being. And the moment you abdicate that deeply personal duty and responsibility to some anonymous governmental bureaucrats who are insulated from his decision by a binder full of rules and regulations, anything the government want to do to your life can and WILL BE justified by that third party.

 

[sarthak]

Yes, you are.


And I am laughing at you.


Code for 'I have no answer.'


Why is it a duty? Because we paid taxes. Fair enough. But it is also fair FOR THE GOVERNMENT to say: 'That since you abdicated your own duty to me, pretty much entirely, I have the right to infringe upon certain freedoms that are inherent within that issue that you granted to me by the same abdication.'

Anything that is a burden or a duty is always accompanied by responsibilities and with responsibilities comes AUTHORITY. Do you understand? When we have children, we gave ourselves the duty of caring for them and with that burden, moral and physical, comes responsibilities to provide them with more than just basic needs and in that process, we gave ourselves the authority to control certain rights and freedoms. Control includes allowances and restrictions.

So if you support the government in taking over your health care, which I doubt you even know what that entails, you have no choice but to support the government's right to dictate, not merely promote, what you eat, drink, and who to marry. Admit it, you are a communist.

Admit it , you are a winy little pussy. Did you actually get gang raped hard by a some gay communists while in 1980's Vietnam , or did a communist tune your girlfriend in a bar and took her home? That certainly would explain your fear of of it. I've given up on a rational discussion with you. I am a student of finance and economics and you are not. I know way more about how economic systems function than what you will ever know. Your views are too simplistic and distorted by your fear of communism. You fail to make a distinction between kensyan and communist policies. Even hardcore Neo Classicalists favor a role of government in certain areas like tacking illegal drugs. Unless you get over your fetish for Ronald Raegen , Richard Nixon and his likes , it's pointless speaking to you. What you purport is a lawless state where everything from healthcare , to even the police and justice is controlled by wealthy , profit minded individuals who have no interest in improving the lives of citizens. Gotham city without Batman sounds like a perfect place for you to live. Too bad it only exists in fiction.

 

[livingdead]

So am I. But health care is not what the government should be doing. The greater the degree of separation from the self, the more tolerant we are in abdicating some duties and responsibilities to a third party, especially when there are things that are unpredictable like crime or international conflicts that escalate to warfare.

Health care is not one or two or three degrees away. It is immediate to the physical being. And the moment you abdicate that deeply personal duty and responsibility to some anonymous governmental bureaucrats who are insulated from his decision by a binder full of rules and regulations, anything the government want to do to your life can and WILL BE justified by that third party.

well, just like I expected, you want least govt intervention.
When the situation changes, the balance between govt responsibility (abdicated by citizen) and citizen's own changes.

For example, since the advent of age of terrorism, most of us resigned to our fate that we all will be monitored heavily (some might not like the extent it is now but most agree to reduce their freedom a bit).

Now healthcare. At the heart of healthcare is the affordability. If USA has a tiered taxation system so that rich contributes more to tax( in percentage), it already agreed that rich will contribute to the collective budget more.
Please respond if you fundamentally disagree with that and prefer flat rate tax.

Now if you want relatively less affluent not to die due to unaffordable desease, you would like to fund the shortfall from somewhere, most probably tax?
European solved it using NHS way, a massive money guzzling behemoth with insatiable apatite. US does not have to do that.

An universaly contributed health insurance(with option to top up but not opt out) for example can free you up from being tied to govt doctors(govt deciding everything about your health).

 

[sarthak]

Is there any wonder why the simple microwave oven cannot come out of a communist country?

Look at the map of the world and find a certain country called China. It doesn't just make microwaves , but literally 70% of the goods sold by walmart.

 

[RAMPAGE]

I know its difficult to get your head around, but yeah, the quality of life of a rich pakistani is higher than US can provide for equivalent level of affluence.

Compare the lifestyles of a Pakistani minister and an American minister

 

[gambit]

Admit it , you are a winy little pussy. Did you actually get gang raped hard by a some gay communists while in 1980's Vietnam , or did a communist tune your girlfriend in a bar and took her home? That certainly would explain your fear of of it. I've given up on a rational discussion with you. I am a student of finance and economics and you are not. I know way more about how economic systems function than what you will ever know. Your views are too simplistic and distorted by your fear of communism. You fail to make a distinction between kensyan and communist policies. Even hardcore Neo Classicalists favor a role of government in certain areas like tacking illegal drugs. Unless you get over your fetish for Ronald Raegen , Richard Nixon and his likes , it's pointless speaking to you. What you purport is a lawless state where everything from healthcare , to even the police and justice is controlled by wealthy , profit minded individuals who have no interest in improving the lives of citizens. Gotham city without Batman sounds like a perfect place for you to live. Too bad it only exists in fiction.

A student? That explains the cowardice feebly disguised as contempt. A student, eh? That mean most likely you never had a real job, no real personal budget, no real responsibilities, and may be still mooching off ma and pa.

Yeah...Like us adults should take the criticisms from a student seriously.

 

[gambit]

well, just like I expected, you want least govt intervention.
When the situation changes, the balance between govt responsibility (abdicated by citizen) and citizen's own changes.

Do not assume that I presumed duties and responsibilities that are upon the government to came from abdications from the people. The average person have no credible response to state aggression, for example. That is war and the purview of the government.

Now healthcare. At the heart of healthcare is the affordability. If USA has a tiered taxation system so that rich contributes more to tax( in percentage), it already agreed that rich will contribute to the collective budget more.
Please respond if you fundamentally disagree with that and prefer flat rate tax.

Now if you want relatively less affluent not to die due to unaffordable desease, you would like to fund the shortfall from somewhere, most probably tax?
European solved it using NHS way, a massive money guzzling behemoth with insatiable apatite. US does not have to do that.

An universaly contributed health insurance(with option to top up but not opt out) for example can free you up from being tied to govt doctors(govt deciding everything about your health).

Affordability is a different issue. If health care affordability is enough to qualify for governmental intervention, what else can be justified?

The absurd tax argument was presented by someone else and he cowardly ran from defending it. It is absurd in the sense that the believer will not descend from the abstract. If the tax argument is legitimate, I will argue, also in the abstract, that since I paid tax for a universal health care system, I reserve the right to tell you what I think is appropriate pricing for your health care needs. So can you for mine, for your neighbor, your fellow citizen across the country, etc. If my next door neighbor have cancer and he want John Hopkins, I can criticize him for his excess and abuse of my tax money in that pool.

It would not matter if the criticism is from a rich man or a poor man and who paid into it more. It is the principle of it. Just because I make one mil/yr, that does not mean my criticism of you for wanting John Hopkins for cancer treatment any less legitimate. If anything, precisely because I, as a millionaire, contributed more into that fund, my criticisms of you should weigh more than you of me about my health care needs.

Look at the map of the world and find a certain country called China. It doesn't just make microwaves , but literally 70% of the goods sold by walmart.

You must be one sorry student. I was talking about inventions. Since under Marxism where everyone is allocated just enough for his needs, by force if necessary, what is there for creativity? You get an 'F' for critical thinking.

 

[livingdead]

Do not assume that I presumed duties and responsibilities that are upon the government to came from abdications from the people. The average person have no credible response to state aggression, for example. That is war and the purview of the government.


Affordability is a different issue. If health care affordability is enough to qualify for governmental intervention, what else can be justified?

The absurd tax argument was presented by someone else and he cowardly ran from defending it. It is absurd in the sense that the believer will not descend from the abstract. If the tax argument is legitimate, I will argue, also in the abstract, that since I paid tax for a universal health care system, I reserve the right to tell you what I think is appropriate pricing for your health care needs. So can you for mine, for your neighbor, your fellow citizen across the country, etc. If my next door neighbor have cancer and he want John Hopkins, I can criticize him for his excess and abuse of my tax money in that pool.

It would not matter if the criticism is from a rich man or a poor man and who paid into it more. It is the principle of it. Just because I make one mil/yr, that does not mean my criticism of you for wanting John Hopkins for cancer treatment any less legitimate. If anything, precisely because I, as a millionaire, contributed more into that fund, my criticisms of you should weigh more than you of me about my health care needs.


You must be one sorry student. I was talking about inventions. Since under Marxism where everyone is allocated just enough for his needs, by force if necessary, what is there for creativity? You get an 'F' for critical thinking.

Affordability is the main issue. America has world class facility in healthcare and nobody is saying healthcare is bad.
What is lacking is a system which will allow poor people to get affordable treatment.

Forget govt. How about coming together as a society and making a contract that all of you will contribute some amount to a common kitty so that if few of you get ill, he will have a chance of a basic level of threatment irrespective of whether he/she can afford it. Rich among you still can spend money for best in class treatment, but poor will get to be treated by cheapest provider(unless they are ready to pay the difference).

Surely such society is more humane than, those where people think 'I am a millionaire so I can fight cancer, let poor die of cancer because he should have thought about it before being poor'

 

[cloud_9]

Yes. USA is a has-been rotting place not worth coming to or even applying for a visa. /sarcasm.

 

[sarthak]

Do not assume that I presumed duties and responsibilities that are upon the government to came from abdications from the people. The average person have no credible response to state aggression, for example. That is war and the purview of the government.


Affordability is a different issue. If health care affordability is enough to qualify for governmental intervention, what else can be justified?

The absurd tax argument was presented by someone else and he cowardly ran from defending it. It is absurd in the sense that the believer will not descend from the abstract. If the tax argument is legitimate, I will argue, also in the abstract, that since I paid tax for a universal health care system, I reserve the right to tell you what I think is appropriate pricing for your health care needs. So can you for mine, for your neighbor, your fellow citizen across the country, etc. If my next door neighbor have cancer and he want John Hopkins, I can criticize him for his excess and abuse of my tax money in that pool.

It would not matter if the criticism is from a rich man or a poor man and who paid into it more. It is the principle of it. Just because I make one mil/yr, that does not mean my criticism of you for wanting John Hopkins for cancer treatment any less legitimate. If anything, precisely because I, as a millionaire, contributed more into that fund, my criticisms of you should weigh more than you of me about my health care needs.


You must be one sorry student. I was talking about inventions. Since under Marxism where everyone is allocated just enough for his needs, by force if necessary, what is there for creativity? You get an 'F' for critical thinking.

A student? That explains the cowardice feebly disguised as contempt. A student, eh? That mean most likely you never had a real job, no real personal budget, no real responsibilities, and may be still mooching off ma and pa.

Yeah...Like us adults should take the criticisms from a student seriously.

Yeah , Adults who see all kensyans as Boogie Man

Do not assume that I presumed duties and responsibilities that are upon the government to came from abdications from the people. The average person have no credible response to state aggression, for example. That is war and the purview of the government.


Affordability is a different issue. If health care affordability is enough to qualify for governmental intervention, what else can be justified?

The absurd tax argument was presented by someone else and he cowardly ran from defending it. It is absurd in the sense that the believer will not descend from the abstract. If the tax argument is legitimate, I will argue, also in the abstract, that since I paid tax for a universal health care system, I reserve the right to tell you what I think is appropriate pricing for your health care needs. So can you for mine, for your neighbor, your fellow citizen across the country, etc. If my next door neighbor have cancer and he want John Hopkins, I can criticize him for his excess and abuse of my tax money in that pool.

It would not matter if the criticism is from a rich man or a poor man and who paid into it more. It is the principle of it. Just because I make one mil/yr, that does not mean my criticism of you for wanting John Hopkins for cancer treatment any less legitimate. If anything, precisely because I, as a millionaire, contributed more into that fund, my criticisms of you should weigh more than you of me about my health care needs.

You must be one sorry student. I was talking about inventions. Since under Marxism where everyone is allocated just enough for his needs, by force if necessary, what is there for creativity? You get an 'F' for critical thinking.

Hahaha , you really don't know $hit do you? There are several nobel prize winners from the USSR and erstwhile socialist countries like Poland and currently socialist countries like Sweden. Sweden has a much higher standard of living than the US. Commy USSR managed to launch a satellite into space before the US. The most brilliant scientists in Europe came about during communist regimes when there was a huge impetus on imparting physics and math education. Now , most European students chose a shitty arts or sociology major or leave college altogether to work at 7/11 or a cafe. That certainly explains the 40% youth unemployment in countries like France , Spain ,italy and Greece.One reason for this being that students there cannot afford to pay for degrees like Engineering ,computers , math or Finance that are actually needed in the workforce. On the other hand , countries like Norway and Sweden with the lowest Gini coefficient seem to be doing really well. This yet again demonstrates why certain things like education , healthcare etc should never be privatized and as Keynes said , government has to step in to ensure that these services reach the people who need them. But again , the concept eludes you because your tiny pussy has already been raped by some gay communists and that has really affected you brain. You are one of the lucky ones who can afford expensive healthcare and you thus promote your narrow perspective over what's needed for the greater good. A typical/average american is a walmart mom earning 15 bucks an hour you , not some guy living in Beverly Hills who can afford a million dollar house.