Gordo is gone!

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by golog

Bad timing to move to New Zealand for those reasons, eh?
(For those that don't know, New Zealand had a political shift in which they instituted radical deregulation and privatization beginning in 1984, superseding what was done in Thatcher's or Reagan's tenures)

That was because their social system basically collapsed. I remember that.

[BCPhil]

Keith Martin is going to step down as Liberal MP for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca. Any bets he'll throw his hat into the ring for BC Liberal leadership? The guy has a pretty good history, originally beating Dave Barrett of all people, and holding off both the Conservatives and NDP in a very close call riding. And his personal ideology is very closely in line with the BC Liberals (conservative on business, yet socially liberal).

=====================

Hate to burst the socialism v. capitalism debate, but in Canada right v. left isn't the same.

Both the NDP and Liberals have socialist policies, both also believe in the free market. The NDP, while in power didn't size total control over the natural resource sector, they didn't seize failing employers and prop them up, they didn't mandate free high speed internet for the masses, they didn't give every citizen free post secondary education. Under total socialist policies, harvested trees, coal, minerals, gas and oil, would belong to the crown. The NDP sat around and let half our forest industry get sold off to foreign companies.

I didn't see the Liberals at all try to dismantle BCLC, BC Liquor, ICBC, or the health sector. We still have regulatory bodies in place that mandate the price of electricity and gas. While they tinkered with the idea of selling off BC Hydro, it wasn't so much theology that got them there, it was $$$ signs. They even instituted one of the only provincial green taxes in the country, the carbon tax.

Most of the differences come down to spending policies. Both parties spent public money to win votes. The NDP spent it on the public sector, giving government employees huge salaries and benefits packages. They didn't believe in a huge public sector overseeing and improving the lives of British Columbians, they believed in buying votes. Well paid workers are happy voters. The NDP were opportunistic and spent public money with the sole intent to keep themselves in power. They increased the size of government, without increasing it's authority or capacity. The provincial institutions didn't gain ground, they didn't supervise more than they used to, they didn't gain power they didn't have before. They just increased the number of employees and increased their wages in the hope it would increase the number of NDP voters. There were so many unneeded health care support workers that many had over 10 weeks of vacation a year (to allow everyone else time to work). What new lasting institutions of public supervision did the NDP try to set up in their 10 years in power?

While that might fit some people's definition of socialism, to me it's just corruption and union crony-ism. They spent money at no gain to social benefit. They didn't have a plan, they didn't have a vision, they just spent money.

But the Liberals also spent their money on votes. They cut back the public sector, but not because they don't believe in it. They just needed the money for other things, and getting it from an over bloated public sector was the fastest way of getting it. Then they used that money to buy votes from private sector employees. They started infrastructure projects that employed many, mainly around hosting the Olympics. And while a lot of lefties might criticize the Olympics, an international body dedicated to sports that has governments spend money hosting major events hardly adheres to the principles of laissez faire capitalism. While the Olympics might primarily be enjoyed by the upper class, most of the money spent went to employing the middle class. The liberals did sell off BC Rail, and while it was free market policy, it was a bit under-priced IMO, and the liberals bought themselves some friends at our expense. BC ferries was restructured, but it's still a taxpayer owned institution, with many of the smaller routes still heavily subsidized. The liberals spent heavily on building roads, and while not directly employed by the government, many construction workers are employed at the public's expense. The liberals didn't really cut down on the power of government, they just redirected money towards their own friends.

While that is certainly more free-market like, it's not completely free market. Many of the social institutions still have the same power and authority they had before, just with fewer employees.

At the end of the day, both parties still maintain social institutions. The parties just differ at where we spend the extra money we have. The NDP employed people directly, hiring 3 or 4 people for 2 jobs. The liberals just cut that back to 2 government jobs, but then paid for another 1 or 2 people to work in construction. So while one might actually get you slightly shorter wait times in hospitals or slightly smaller classrooms, the other gets you infrastructure that is used by companies to employee people. Both parties manage to spend huge amounts of money, but the Liberals have had more success, in that their investments in infrastructure have created more jobs and grew the economy faster than was possible by directly employing as many people as possible.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

Keith Martin is going to step down as Liberal MP for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca. Any bets he'll throw his hat into the ring for BC Liberal leadership? The guy has a pretty good history, originally beating Dave Barrett of all people, and holding off both the Conservatives and NDP in a very close call riding. And his personal ideology is very closely in line with the BC Liberals (conservative on business, yet socially liberal).

Actually he's going to remain as an MP until the next federal election. Remember though, that in 1993 the federal NDP in BC was literally crushed when Martin first won EJDF. The NDP even lost their bedrock BC seat of Vancouver East in 1993.

Martin had a good reputation with his constituents but only staved off a CPC win by 68 votes in 2008. After 17 years, it's time to pack it in. Many MP's from the class of 1993 have also announced their retirement such as Jay Hill in Prince George-Peace River (has actually reigned his seat) and Jim Abbott in Kootenay Columbia.

And no, I doubt very much he will jump into the provincial leadership ring. Frankly, he's just not leadership material IMHO.

[Phil McAvity]

^You're probably right as evidenced by his run at the leadership of the Canadian Alliance years ago where he garnered less than 2% of the votes and for a guy as charismatic as Martin, that's pretty sad.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

Keith Martin is going to step down as Liberal MP for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca. Any bets he'll throw his hat into the ring for BC Liberal leadership? The guy has a pretty good history, originally beating Dave Barrett of all people, and holding off both the Conservatives and NDP in a very close call riding. And his personal ideology is very closely in line with the BC Liberals (conservative on business, yet socially liberal).

=====================

Hate to burst the socialism v. capitalism debate, but in Canada right v. left isn't the same.

Both the NDP and Liberals have socialist policies, both also believe in the free market. The NDP, while in power didn't size total control over the natural resource sector, they didn't seize failing employers and prop them up, they didn't mandate free high speed internet for the masses, they didn't give every citizen free post secondary education. Under total socialist policies, harvested trees, coal, minerals, gas and oil, would belong to the crown. The NDP sat around and let half our forest industry get sold off to foreign companies.

I didn't see the Liberals at all try to dismantle BCLC, BC Liquor, ICBC, or the health sector. We still have regulatory bodies in place that mandate the price of electricity and gas. While they tinkered with the idea of selling off BC Hydro, it wasn't so much theology that got them there, it was $$$ signs. They even instituted one of the only provincial green taxes in the country, the carbon tax.

Most of the differences come down to spending policies. Both parties spent public money to win votes. The NDP spent it on the public sector, giving government employees huge salaries and benefits packages. They didn't believe in a huge public sector overseeing and improving the lives of British Columbians, they believed in buying votes. Well paid workers are happy voters. The NDP were opportunistic and spent public money with the sole intent to keep themselves in power. They increased the size of government, without increasing it's authority or capacity. The provincial institutions didn't gain ground, they didn't supervise more than they used to, they didn't gain power they didn't have before. They just increased the number of employees and increased their wages in the hope it would increase the number of NDP voters. There were so many unneeded health care support workers that many had over 10 weeks of vacation a year (to allow everyone else time to work). What new lasting institutions of public supervision did the NDP try to set up in their 10 years in power?

While that might fit some people's definition of socialism, to me it's just corruption and union crony-ism. They spent money at no gain to social benefit. They didn't have a plan, they didn't have a vision, they just spent money.

But the Liberals also spent their money on votes. They cut back the public sector, but not because they don't believe in it. They just needed the money for other things, and getting it from an over bloated public sector was the fastest way of getting it. Then they used that money to buy votes from private sector employees. They started infrastructure projects that employed many, mainly around hosting the Olympics. And while a lot of lefties might criticize the Olympics, an international body dedicated to sports that has governments spend money hosting major events hardly adheres to the principles of laissez faire capitalism. While the Olympics might primarily be enjoyed by the upper class, most of the money spent went to employing the middle class. The liberals did sell off BC Rail, and while it was free market policy, it was a bit under-priced IMO, and the liberals bought themselves some friends at our expense. BC ferries was restructured, but it's still a taxpayer owned institution, with many of the smaller routes still heavily subsidized. The liberals spent heavily on building roads, and while not directly employed by the government, many construction workers are employed at the public's expense. The liberals didn't really cut down on the power of government, they just redirected money towards their own friends.

While that is certainly more free-market like, it's not completely free market. Many of the social institutions still have the same power and authority they had before, just with fewer employees.

At the end of the day, both parties still maintain social institutions. The parties just differ at where we spend the extra money we have. The NDP employed people directly, hiring 3 or 4 people for 2 jobs. The liberals just cut that back to 2 government jobs, but then paid for another 1 or 2 people to work in construction. So while one might actually get you slightly shorter wait times in hospitals or slightly smaller classrooms, the other gets you infrastructure that is used by companies to employee people. Both parties manage to spend huge amounts of money, but the Liberals have had more success, in that their investments in infrastructure have created more jobs and grew the economy faster than was possible by directly employing as many people as possible.

The Liberals in the past have been more of a party that campaigns a bit to the left of centre. But when in power they tend to govern to the right of centre.

I'm referring to the federal Liberals as well in this regard.

[FREKI]

Originally Posted by Yume-sama

I don't think a top-end 63% income tax + 14% duty + 25% VAT on purchases would fly here.

I don't think it would here either

Reality check:

Here in Copenhagen the average person pay 28,6% in income tax

( The max is 51% and only applies to income above 390.000 DKK - first 60.000 DKK made is taxfree )

Our duty is lower than Canada's.. and the "Moms" ( a VAT like sales tax ) is 20% of the product price and always included

Originally Posted by Yume-sama

So yes, they may be living well (in their own mind), but almost none are living great.

I'm glad you're an expert

May I suggest a visit... you might be surprised!

( the immigrants from Canada I know here seems to be pretty happy with their choice! )

Originally Posted by Yume-sama

The idea of being like Europe is a lot less romantic when you study their history, and understand why we all fled over here to begin with

May I suggest you study some history then...

Exactly when and what Scandinavians fled and why? ( heck when has any Europeans every fled to NA except WW2 jews )

Originally Posted by Yume-sama

Of course, Europe has 60+% income tax, and still charges a full VAT (25% in Denmark) on everything. Even houses. Sound familiar.

False and false... You don't pay VAT on houses here, only the contractors work if you have a new one constructed for you.. the "Moms" ( our VAT like system ) is 20% of the item's price and please tell me where anyone in Europe can ever reach 60+% income tax

Originally Posted by Yume-sama

Anybody you know of European descent ended up here because their ancestors ran away from... *drum roll*... socialism and its side effects.

Actually it was *drum role* polarbear attacks!



Seriously dude, I'm sure you believe your own crap but for Odin's sake try looking into the matter before you spread your misinformation - you sound like a Fox news report...


Socialism is pretty straight forward about being social ( caring ) and I'm not aware of it having driven anyone away.. ever!

The chain is not stronger than the weakest link is the mentality here in Scandinavia and this mixed with letting companies pay taxes mean we get some pretty good services at tax levels very close to ( sometimes even lower ) than capitalist based nations..


So poor little me working my 32h job with my 10 weeks paid vacation making twice the Canadian average income with 28% income tax and free virtually everything including pension... I really should flee this horrible Socialism eh...


Sorry to be an arse - but mate, at least look into reality before calling out nations and systems you clearly know nothing off...

[Phil McAvity]

Originally Posted by FREKI

Seriously dude, I'm sure you believe your own crap but for Odin's sake try looking into the matter before you spread your misinformation - you sound like a Fox news report...

Unless you can provide proof that Fox News is less competent than any of the other news networks this is just more left-wing propaganda.

Originally Posted by FREKI

Socialism is pretty straight forward about being social ( caring ) and I'm not aware of it having driven anyone away.. ever!

I always get a laugh out of this notion that socialists are more "caring" than capitalists by the fact they are more interested in forcing people to pay high taxes for government social programs to "help" people. Firstly, show me one example of government being better able to deliver social services than a charity. Just one. Secondly, what is "caring" or fair about forcing people to contribute to social services vis-a-vis taxes? Nothing. There is no greater caring than people voluntarily giving of their time, effort and money to help people but government is hardly the best vehicle in which to carry this out. Holding a gun to someone's head and forcing them to pay high taxes to subsidize others doesn't prove that they are caring, it only proves that they don't want to go to prison for not doing so. What's more, i've known a number of people who live in Canada now that have immigrated from very leftist countries and they are the most outspoken opponents of socialism you will find because they understand that socialism is not only not caring but it is completely unfair and actually stifles liberty, prosperity and opportunity.

[Yume-sama]

It must be more caring. That must be why the fatality rate for most every type of cancer (and other diseases) is much higher than in the USA. Even Canada (which is substantially better than most European nations) lags seriously behind the USA, mostly due to wait times. Breast & Prostate cancer both have 20 - 30% higher survivability in the USA than here.

And I wouldn't know if I sound like Fox News, as far as I can tell that's not available in Canada. But they must be sensible.

In the end it doesn't really matter to me. I don't pay taxes in BC, and I have private health insurance, and use private health services. Need an MRI? How about getting one tomorrow instead of 6 months I certainly won't make the mistake of having faith in the caring government system, like my 3 dead family members.

The same current system who is telling my Father, who can barely walk, that he's not old enough for a knee replacement, because he'd likely live long enough to have to get a second replacement, and the quota on that is 1 per person. Assuming you live the 2 - 3 years it takes to actually get a knee replacement, once you're on the list. Or the one who wouldn't give my uncle a surgery to cure his total blindness because the quota for the province had already been reached for the year. But, if he wanted he could go on an 18 month waiting list, or pay $1200 to get it done next week.

So forgive me for not having faith in a system like we have. Or the one European nations have, like in Greece where they've decided amputation is cheaper than diabetes treatment.
http://dailycaller.com/2010/10/11/gr...s-money-saver/

In the end, there is nothing caring about any government, or any government system. But, I value having more freedoms to choose for myself (like as little government involvement as possible).

[touraccuracy]

Originally Posted by Phil McAvity

Unless you can provide proof that Fox News is less competent than any of the other news networks this is just more left-wing propaganda.

http://www.outfoxed.org/

http://mediamatters.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_New..._controversies

particularily, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_New...o_manipulation

http://www.newshounds.us/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3LUid0IZ2w

or, really, anything by rachel maddow.

until recently there was a thread in the current events section of ssp that had 12 pages or something full of articles, studies, videos calling out fox news, i don't know where it went, think it fell of the second page.

[Yume-sama]

Originally Posted by touraccuracy

or, really, anything by rachel maddow.

And what is MSNBC? They are exactly the same thing as FOX News. The only difference is you might personally agree with them.

Anybody who cites MSNBC as "journalism" while deriding Fox News as noise is purely a hypocrite.

They both OPENLY endorse, and help finance, their respective parties.

The CEO of GE is as openly involved with the Obama administration as the CEO of Fox News is with the Republicans.

[vanlaw]

Dianne Watts announced she will not run for Liberal leadership. Just announced on Global.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by Yume-sama

It must be more caring. That must be why the fatality rate for most every type of cancer (and other diseases) is much higher than in the USA. Even Canada (which is substantially better than most European nations) lags seriously behind the USA, mostly due to wait times.

Proof? Citations? Or just conveniently held opinions?

From "A systematic review of studies comparing health outcomes in Canada and the United States"
http://www.openmedicine.ca/article/view/8/1

"We identified 38 studies comparing populations of patients in Canada and the United States. Studies addressed diverse problems, including cancer, coronary artery disease, chronic medical illnesses and surgical procedures. Of 10 studies that included extensive statistical adjustment and enrolled broad populations, 5 favoured Canada, 2 favoured the United States, and 3 showed equivalent or mixed results. Of 28 studies that failed one of these criteria, 9 favoured Canada, 3 favoured the United States, and 16 showed equivalent or mixed results. Overall, results for mortality favoured Canada (relative risk 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.92-0.98, p= 0.002) but were very heterogeneous, and we failed to find convincing explanations for this heterogeneity. The only condition in which results consistently favoured one country was end-stage renal disease, in which Canadian patients fared better."

[Yume-sama]

It is common knowledge in the medical community, but a Google search can just as easily tell you, on one of the 12 million results.

It is also a subject I have researched tirelessly, as two immediate family members have died from breast cancer, and one from prostate cancer.

As I understand, some "minor" cancers for whatever reason have a statistical better outcome in Canada, but not the major ones.

That likely doesn't spell good things for me, in the future But I know not to rely on the compassionate government system.

Survival Rates Significantly Higher in United States Than in Europe

One of the reports compares the statistics from Europe with those from the United States and shows that for most solid tumors, survival rates were significantly higher in US patients than in European patients. This analysis, headed by Arduino Verdecchia, PhD, from the National Center for Epidemiology, Health Surveillance, and Promotion, in Rome, Italy, was based on the most recent data available. It involved about 6.7 million patients from 21 countries, who were diagnosed with cancer between 2000 and 2002.

The age-adjusted 5-year survival rates for all cancers combined was 47.3% for men and 55.8% for women, which is significantly lower than the estimates of 66.3% for men and 62.9% for women from the US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program ( P < .001).

Survival was significantly higher in the United States for all solid tumors, except testicular, stomach, and soft-tissue cancer, the authors report. The greatest differences were seen in the major cancer sites: colon and rectum (56.2% in Europe vs 65.5% in the United States), breast (79.0% vs 90.1%), and prostate cancer (77.5% vs 99.3%), and this "probably represents differences in the timeliness of diagnosis," they comment.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/561737

Bolded pertain to what I pointed out as the most major, deadly, cancers in my mind.

It doesn't take much of a scientific mind to understand diagnosis time, and treatment time, if painfully slow (and from personal experience, it is) can prove to be fatal.

And for just a Canada centric view~

Citing barriers to care that include long treatment waiting lists and inadequate numbers of specialists, the Toronto-based Cancer Advocacy Coalition of Canada’s analysis maintains that Canadian cancer patients—with the exception of those in Alberta and British Columbia—fare far worse than their American counterparts.

http://www.canceradvocacy.ca/

I do hate to admit we've ventured far off-topic now lol. Go Gordo Go?

[dreambrother808]

I was focusing more on the Canadian vs. US perspective. The view of one advocacy group does not negate the studies I presented. It even admits to not being true for those of us in Alberta and BC.

As for Europe, they do not have a unified, continent-wide healthcare system. Comparing the US to Europe as a whole seems a bit silly, nor does it negate the benefits of universal health care. Obviously some European countries would fare better and worse, due to differences in their systems and most likely economic wealth.


"The United States spends the most money in the world on its health care system, as a percentage of GDP, and ranks 37th in overall performance. The United States' life expectancy rate of 78-years-old is indicative of a good health care system. However, it is important to remember that although the U.S. spends more money than any other country, we are only ranked 50th in life expectancy. In general when the U.S. health care system is compared to other developed nations in Europe and Asia, it does not do as well as might be expected. France, for example, spends considerably less the United States on health care, and yet it is ranked the highest in the world for overall performance."

http://www.suite101.com/content/wher...health-a150590

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by Yume-sama

The same current system who is telling my Father, who can barely walk, that he's not old enough for a knee replacement, because he'd likely live long enough to have to get a second replacement, and the quota on that is 1 per person. Assuming you live the 2 - 3 years it takes to actually get a knee replacement, once you're on the list.

That's patently incorrect. There is no 'quota' on how many TKRs or revisions that one can get in BC.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by vanlaw

Dianne Watts announced she will not run for Liberal leadership. Just announced on Global.

So unless Carole Taylor runs, is it wide open for Falcon?

[Stingray2004]

IMHO, the three Liberal candidates that would represent change and a fresh start and who also have positive approval ratings are:

1. Carole Taylor;
2. Dianne Watts;
3. Blair Lekstrom;

Dianne Watts is out of the race. Carole Taylor is out of the race (unless someone twists her arm, which is highly doubtful.)

And that leaves Blair Lekstrom who has stated and appears likely to enter the race. Lekstrom, a former cabinet minister, is also considered as an "outsider" who is both affable and likable and is a moderate centrist. He was the lone guy to oppose the HEU contract tear-ups, left caucus because of the HST and is a former union member to boot.

The new voting rules for leadership selection now favour rural areas where Lekstrom is from. Unlike Falcon, who represents the status quo and is a Campbell clone, Lekstrom represents the outside candidate for change. Alot of polling will occur over the next few months pitting various leadership hopefuls against the NDP and I'd wager that Lekstrom will continuously come out on top.

At the end of the day, Liberal party members will vote for the guy that they figure can win and Lekstrom is also a centrist that can appeal to urban Liberals.

Former NDP strategist and Fight HST organizer Bill Tieleman last week stated that either Watts or Lekstrom were the two candidates that the NDP should be most concerned about.

With the leadership convention as long as six months away, I'm putting my money on Lekstrom for now.

[vanlaw]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

With the leadership convention as long as six months away, I'm putting my money on Lekstrom for now.has

They just announced that leadership convention will be Feb 12, so less than two months away now. Interesting.

[Stingray2004]

Actually, strangely enough, they have not scheduled the leadership convention date yet.

1. February 12th, 2011 - Vancouver - special convention to change party constitution to change leadership vote process.

2. May 13th and 14th, 2011 - Penticton - biennial convention and general meeting.

These two events are apparently constitutionally separate from both the leadership vote and the extraordinary convention to deal with constitutional matters.

The next steps for the BC Liberal Party Executive will be to schedule a date for the Leadership Vote

http://www.bcliberals.com/news/bc_li...ll_conventions

It's almost political overkill.

[FREKI]

Originally Posted by Phil McAvity

Unless you can provide proof that Fox News is less competent than any of the other news networks this is just more left-wing propaganda.

Since when has I ever been left wing?
( as if politics was binary )

Anyways see touraccuracy's post or read up on the press indexes.. or better yet, turn on the crap for 10min and see just how fear and politics driven it actually is..

Originally Posted by Phil McAvity

I always get a laugh out of this notion that socialists are more "caring" than capitalists by the fact they are more interested in forcing people to pay high taxes for government social programs to "help" people

You don't seem to know what a socialist it..

And you don't need higher taxes, just prioritizing the funds available..

As the US shows lacking universal healthcare is anything BUT cost efficient!

As for caring - interest in a socialist nation is to keep people happy, employed and safe.. this can be done in many ways like covering your gas bill to and from work or your PT if that is your thing, by paying you to study rather than not charging you, by providing you with a secure retirement so the money you make as a young person can be spend on yourself rather than get you in the claws of the banks etc etc..

There's a lot more to it than just healthcare.. it really is about ensuring not that all are on the same level, but that no one is left behind.. ( weakest link and all that )

Originally Posted by Phil McAvity

Holding a gun to someone's head and forcing them to pay high taxes to subsidize others doesn't prove that they are caring, it only proves that they don't want to go to prison for not doing so

Who's holding a gun to anyone's head?

I'm taxed on the income I decide to generate above 60.000 DKK... something I find fair since the first 20 years of my life was on the State that provided me and my family with everything needed, even paid me to go to school..

( I guess by your logic they were also holding a gun at my head forcing me to receive money and services aren't they? )

And chances are the last 30 years of my life will be in a similar fashion, so me paying a tad while I'm young and productive only seems fair.. it's not like I lack money with our wage system anyways..

( socialist taxation isn't about profiting but distributing the collective funds among the people in the best possible way - it's just as much in our State's interest that people are rich and spending that it is in NA )



Reality is that all modern nations needs a taxation system - as we have already covered by including companies in that process we get a lot covered that way while still remaining very competitive ( more so than Canada )

And as long as that tax is tuned to the income ( world's highest here) and all are equal you will find people really don't mind paying taxes..

Taxes are only a problem if you take it from those who cannot spare it.. that is not the case in the Nordics..

Originally Posted by Phil McAvity

What's more, i've known a number of people who live in Canada now that have immigrated from very leftist countries and they are the most outspoken opponents of socialism you will find

Like what "leftist" countries?

Heck what is a "leftist country" while at it?

My own government is a coalition between the Conservatives and the "Right" party.. but that doesn't stop it from being a social welfare state or a social democracy..

Maybe instead of all this prejudice getting the facts straight should be in order..

Originally Posted by Phil McAvity

because they understand that socialism is not only not caring but it is completely unfair and actually stifles liberty, prosperity and opportunity.

Reality check..

Look up equality, Gini coefficient, wages, happiness, healthcare, various freedom and democracy index etc etc and tell me what kind of nations tops the charts..

( hint it's social democracies from the Nordics and Benelux )


All this demonizing of taxes and socialism is so laughable - as if people were brainwashed or something - try look at how it can be done and IS done around the world and then compare to litter filled streets with homeless people, drug addicts, working poor, grossly indebted people who still can't afford lifesaving surgery etc etc..

A state is ( or certainly should be ) the people's representatives acting on behalf of the people, if that is not the case that is what should be fixed and it isn't fixed by pointing fingers and using false claims to belittle other nations..

It's a big world, a lot has been tested over the years, closing one's eyes to what actually works can be costly in the long run and not just in cash.. plus you'll of course also lose out..