I think a lot more people could figure out how to build things on their own if they didn't have to spend time otherwise paying down massive student loans/mortgage/rent etc...

Still, good on him to being self motivated.

Thanks for the insight in your replies.

It's kinda nitpicky, but in all the stuff I've read about the Finnish system (including the article in The Atlantic), the director of public schools describes the system as equity, not equality. There is the big difference between them and the US system. The US system is totally based on equality, i.e. No Child Left Behind. It's a huge cultural difference to support equity, not equality.
>> ^CreamK:

As a Finnish citizen and being in one the first to gain from the new system, i can say without a doubt that the main point here is not the way we teach: it's about equality!! Every kid has equal opportunity to educate them self for FREE in a schooling system where every school has the same resources and same level of teachers. No matter what color you are, no matter if your parents are rich or poor, you get the same chance in life.
For me, it's been always granted: everyone gets educated, in fact, here there is no chance of not getting educated. Everybody have to get 9 years of basic education, it's in the law. As a parent, you have to extreme lenghts to not get your kid educated. Our "No kids left behind" really means what it says. Literacy is close to 100%, everyone knows how to do basic math, know about the history, geography, all the basic knowledge we humans need to survive.
As for the cost of this system, well, it's cheaper than what US have. By a large margin too. Even when our teachers are considered to be in the upper middle class, one meal per day for free for kids in school, no tuitions until University, all the reading material is free for the first 9 years, you get pens and pencils, rulers and paper, all for free... As for University tuitions, they are not in the range of tens of thousands, it's in the range of hundreds. So by the time a person has got 16 years of education, his student loans are about 10 000€, living and eating here is not free but nobodys forced to do two jobs to pay up for tuitions or parents getting a mortgage to give their younglings a fair chance.
Did i say it's cheaper than what US have? How about treating your citizens truly equal and giving everyone the chance of that American Dream?

As a Finnish citizen and being in one the first to gain from the new system, i can say without a doubt that the main point here is not the way we teach: it's about equality!! Every kid has equal opportunity to educate them self for FREE in a schooling system where every school has the same resources and same level of teachers. No matter what color you are, no matter if your parents are rich or poor, you get the same chance in life.

For me, it's been always granted: everyone gets educated, in fact, here there is no chance of not getting educated. Everybody have to get 9 years of basic education, it's in the law. As a parent, you have to extreme lenghts to not get your kid educated. Our "No kids left behind" really means what it says. Literacy is close to 100%, everyone knows how to do basic math, know about the history, geography, all the basic knowledge we humans need to survive.

As for the cost of this system, well, it's cheaper than what US have. By a large margin too. Even when our teachers are considered to be in the upper middle class, one meal per day for free for kids in school, no tuitions until University, all the reading material is free for the first 9 years, you get pens and pencils, rulers and paper, all for free... As for University tuitions, they are not in the range of tens of thousands, it's in the range of hundreds. So by the time a person has got 16 years of education, his student loans are about 10 000€, living and eating here is not free but nobodys forced to do two jobs to pay up for tuitions or parents getting a mortgage to give their younglings a fair chance.

Did i say it's cheaper than what US have? How about treating your citizens truly equal and giving everyone the chance of that American Dream?

> Romney in the White-House

As I have always said throughout the banking crisis, stock market collapse, mortgage scams, and banker buyout of Washington, you know what America needs? A scammity investment banker at the helm.

It makes me sick that, like Mitt says, we borrow $215 million a year from China so kids can watch PBS without commercials. That's just one sign of the Mitt Genius.

Hey if it weren't for that PBS deficit maybe we could have thrown that $215 million in with that other (1 million TIMES 1 million) dollars we spent on the F35 Joint Strike Fighter program alone (total estimated cost) and maybe the thing would be actually safe to fly by now.

Speaking for myself, Paul could change my mind if he a) admitted fault, and b) gave some sort of speech about why racism is morally wrong.

>>> For the long speech you'll have to wait. As for the apology,

"When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."

--Ron Paul, Business Wire

A poster on the site "The Daily Paul" summed it up nicely:

What if you rent your home out, and the people use the house. to molest children. Should you be required to accept responsibility? Your name is still on the mortgage, so are you accountable for every action of the renters?

All you could tell people is that you had no knowledge, but admit you should have kept a better watch on your property, and accept 'moral responsibility' (versus actual responsibility, since you did not molest anyone and don't advocate that action).

Instead he's denying any fault, and castigating people for asking him to say anything at all about it, as if he thinks that kind of racist rhetoric isn't something people should be upset about.

>>> Due to the above statement I disagree that Dr. Paul is denying any fault. Based on what I've read, he has taken receipt of this newsletter flap. That he hasn't worded an apology precisely that is satisfactory to you is out of his (or my) control. I could be 100% wrong, but I do not believe you harbor a change of heart that will be triggered by a Paul apology. You are no under no obligation to support or believe him. Can we agree you're not a libertarian frustrated only by the doubt created by the Ron Paul newsletters?

Ultimately that's what you yourself said with your response -- that all charges of racism are bogus. Why you think that, I can't fathom.

>>> Please allow me to clarify my original statement: the problem with LIBERALS labeling anyone a racist is that in 2012 it's crying wolf. It's so overused as to be meaningless.

Ad hominem tu quoque -- which I like to think of as the "I know you are but what am I?" fallacy.

My point about "all of us" being racist is, if we're all covered in poop, no one can accuse anyone else of stinking.

Easy, (Paul) says people have an inalienable right to refuse to serve or hire minorities if they like, but that minorities have no inalienable right to be treated as free and equal citizens when they participate in our society and economy.

>>> I have no easy answer for you, not because Dr. Paul is wrong but because the details of how a libertarian society deals with racism are complex (yet probably less complex than the maze of government coercion now).

A private citizen has a right to refuse to associate with others s/he dislikes, but does the government have the power to create an underclass of citizens? The answer is NO.

Some good comments here on this topic. Not gospel, just snacks for thought.

>> ^blackoreb:

You are out of date with your stereotypes - it has been a while since American cars have sucked. Quality has improved dramatically of late. And improved quality is a contributing factor in the slow-down of the industry. Americans replace their cars less frequently than in the past (a trend that predates 2008).
GM consistently outsells Ford, so your vote-with-our-wallets argument does not work.
Ford would have gone bankrupt in 2006 if it hadn't gotten a $23.5 billion government loan. Since it was a loan Ford now has more debt than its peers. Ford was not in a position financially to "grow to fill the gap".
The domestic automotive business accounts for nearly a million jobs, concentrated in just 3 states. Losing those jobs, even for a year or two while the economy adapted, would have sucked so so bad.

They may not be at their lowest point but I'm not convinced American cars are all that great yet. My mother bought a brand new 2012 Ford Edge in November and I've driven it a few times. It's typical poorly designed, shoddy American craftsmanship.

I don't understand your point about GM outselling Ford and how that invalidates anything I said. Please explain.

I'm under the impression that the 2006 Ford deal was a bank mortgage. Please explain if I'm wrong.

Hi, spent the weekend skiing. Lots of comments, and don't know where to begin.

@GenjiKilpatrick Banks are private; mortgage brokers are private; many good local hospitals are private; insurance companies are private; neighborhood associations are private. Should they be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion?

It's not just a case of not being allowed to eat at Nazi Joe's Diner. And before you answer, there have been recent cases of some of the entities above discriminating, despite a free market existing and racism somehow being bad for business.

And this being black history month, it would be good for you to read up and realize that in the past, many non-white americans were rich and prosperous, despite what you said above.

Wow, I am a bit taken aback by your soft and somewhat flattering response. When I first saw the email that said you had quoted me I braced myself for the typical QM "both barrels" response. Thank you for surprising me.

As far as what social economic system is better than another I would suggest that pure capitalism would likely also fail. History has shown us that when too few have too much and too many have too little the many take drastic steps to redistribute the wealth themselves. Look at the history of Europe.

The human element adds uncertainty and chaos to any system and subsequently all systems are inherently flawed. That is why there are regulating bodies that are meant to enforce the will of the people. When the regulations or those who enforce them are negatively interfered with, society either in part or as a whole, must fail.

I pay about 32% income tax and from what I can figure that number rises to more than 50% when you factor in property tax, sales tax, fuel tax, etc. Despite this burden I do very well so if a portion of these taxes are going to help some person from a poor household to get a better education or it provides care for an elderly person who has no means to support themselves, or even if it goes to the rehabilitation of a young prostitute with a meth addiction I am okay with that. Better roads, better schools, better hospitals, law enforcement, fire protection, it is in support of these socialistically supported things and more that I accept the reduction of half of my earned income.

There will always be people who get what they don't deserve but for the sake of those that do deserve our help I think that we must accept that.
<Insert the clichéd “bad apples” quote here.>

If my contribution can give one person the chance to change their future like I did it is worth it to me.

>> ^quantumushroom:

First of all you are suggesting that Bill Gates is so rich that he has no idea what he pays in taxes... that when he says that wealthy people should be taxed more he is doing that from a position of ignorance. Astonishing.
Rich people can be quite ignorant. Oprah is, and Obama, also rich, doesn't seem to know anything about economics.

As for your quote...
The fundamental issue with your viewpoint is that you see capitalism and socialism as complete and polar oposites that could never meet in the middle. In your ideal world only those who could afford it would be fed, protected, healed, and educated. To hell with those in need.
That's not my viewpoint, however I am extremely skeptical of the so-called "Third Way". Socialism always fails, and capitalism fails when oversaturated with socialism. Look at Europe.
Somehow this is a better existance than a society that defends and cares for it's weakest members? One that provides an equal oportunity of prosperity for all?
I am both lucky and proud to have been born Canadian. When I first started out I had nothing. Due to a very unsatisfactory home life I left home when I was 17 and dropped out of school. During my early years I had the need to make use of unemployment insurance, welfare, and food banks. I worked a blue collar job while raising my kids and as my income was so low I had my government health premiums subsidized to almost nothing. Eventually I got government student loans and went to school at night to try and change carears to improve my situation. I received grants, deducted what little interest there was on the loans from my income tax and in the end most of the debt was forgiven.
Why am I telling you this? Because today I am a professional making 6 figures a year, I have raised a family of 4 children, and I am closing in on a zero mortgage balance. None of which would have been possible in the world that you wish for.
I salute your inspiring life story. The system worked for you, but you still did most of the work. The suggestion that you never would've made it without all the aid I do not believe. What about your neighbor who is perfectly happy living off of unemployment insurance, welfare, food banks, etc. forever? Are you willing to support those who won't--not can't--work as hard as you? Why should you have to raise his children with your taxes along with your own?
I'm not advocating Lord of the Flies, I'm saying the left needs to get its head out of the clouds. There are no solutions in life, only trade-offs.
>> ^Deadrisenmortal:
First of all you are suggesting that Bill Gates is so rich that he has no idea what he pays in taxes... that when he says that wealthy people should be taxed more he is doing that from a position of ignorance. Astonishing.
As for your quote...
The fundamental issue with your viewpoint is that you see capitalism and socialism as complete and polar oposites that could never meet in the middle. In your ideal world only those who could afford it would be fed, protected, healed, and educated. To hell with those in need.
Somehow this is a better existance than a society that defends and cares for it's weakest members? One that provides an equal oportunity of prosperity for all?
I am both lucky and proud to have been born Canadian. When I first started out I had nothing. Due to a very unsatisfactory home life I left home when I was 17 and dropped out of school. During my early years I had the need to make use of unemployment insurance, welfare, and food banks. I worked a blue collar job while raising my kids and as my income was so low I had my government health premiums subsidized to almost nothing. Eventually I got government student loans and went to school at night to try and change carears to improve my situation. I received grants, deducted what little interest there was on the loans from my income tax and in the end most of the debt was forgiven.
Why am I telling you this? Because today I am a professional making 6 figures a year, I have raised a family of 4 children, and I am closing in on a zero mortgage balance. None of which would have been possible in the world that you wish for.

>>

First of all you are suggesting that Bill Gates is so rich that he has no idea what he pays in taxes... that when he says that wealthy people should be taxed more he is doing that from a position of ignorance. Astonishing.

Rich people can be quite ignorant. Oprah is, and Obama, also rich, doesn't seem to know anything about economics.

As for your quote...

The fundamental issue with your viewpoint is that you see capitalism and socialism as complete and polar oposites that could never meet in the middle. In your ideal world only those who could afford it would be fed, protected, healed, and educated. To hell with those in need.

That's not my viewpoint, however I am extremely skeptical of the so-called "Third Way". Socialism always fails, and capitalism fails when oversaturated with socialism. Look at Europe.

Somehow this is a better existance than a society that defends and cares for it's weakest members? One that provides an equal oportunity of prosperity for all?

I am both lucky and proud to have been born Canadian. When I first started out I had nothing. Due to a very unsatisfactory home life I left home when I was 17 and dropped out of school. During my early years I had the need to make use of unemployment insurance, welfare, and food banks. I worked a blue collar job while raising my kids and as my income was so low I had my government health premiums subsidized to almost nothing. Eventually I got government student loans and went to school at night to try and change carears to improve my situation. I received grants, deducted what little interest there was on the loans from my income tax and in the end most of the debt was forgiven.

Why am I telling you this? Because today I am a professional making 6 figures a year, I have raised a family of 4 children, and I am closing in on a zero mortgage balance. None of which would have been possible in the world that you wish for.

I salute your inspiring life story. The system worked for you, but you still did most of the work. The suggestion that you never would've made it without all the aid I do not believe. What about your neighbor who is perfectly happy living off of unemployment insurance, welfare, food banks, etc. forever? Are you willing to support those who won't--not can't--work as hard as you? Why should you have to raise his children with your taxes along with your own?

I'm not advocating Lord of the Flies, I'm saying the left needs to get its head out of the clouds. There are no solutions in life, only trade-offs.










>> ^Deadrisenmortal:

First of all you are suggesting that Bill Gates is so rich that he has no idea what he pays in taxes... that when he says that wealthy people should be taxed more he is doing that from a position of ignorance. Astonishing.
As for your quote...
The fundamental issue with your viewpoint is that you see capitalism and socialism as complete and polar oposites that could never meet in the middle. In your ideal world only those who could afford it would be fed, protected, healed, and educated. To hell with those in need.
Somehow this is a better existance than a society that defends and cares for it's weakest members? One that provides an equal oportunity of prosperity for all?
I am both lucky and proud to have been born Canadian. When I first started out I had nothing. Due to a very unsatisfactory home life I left home when I was 17 and dropped out of school. During my early years I had the need to make use of unemployment insurance, welfare, and food banks. I worked a blue collar job while raising my kids and as my income was so low I had my government health premiums subsidized to almost nothing. Eventually I got government student loans and went to school at night to try and change carears to improve my situation. I received grants, deducted what little interest there was on the loans from my income tax and in the end most of the debt was forgiven.
Why am I telling you this? Because today I am a professional making 6 figures a year, I have raised a family of 4 children, and I am closing in on a zero mortgage balance. None of which would have been possible in the world that you wish for.

>>

>> ^longde:

Hi @conan
What modern multi-ethnic society (more than 30% of another ethnicity/race) doesn't do this? There are several legitimate reasons for doing so.
If I have to live in a country ruled by republicans, and I'm not in their tribe, I damn sure want tracking by race to keep them honest.
Without tracking race in gov't level of service, company hiring, police stops, private lending and mortgages, etc, how could an oppressed minority make a compelling case about discrimination? It would be a 'he said she said' situation against the powers that be.


That is a very good and compelling argument. Never thought of it this way. Thank you.

Hi @conan

What modern multi-ethnic society (more than 30% of another ethnicity/race) doesn't do this? There are several legitimate reasons for doing so.

If I have to live in a country ruled by republicans, and I'm not in their tribe, I damn sure want tracking by race to keep them honest.

Without tracking race in gov't level of service, company hiring, police stops, private lending and mortgages, etc, how could an oppressed minority make a compelling case about discrimination? It would be a 'he said she said' situation against the powers that be.

First of all you are suggesting that Bill Gates is so rich that he has no idea what he pays in taxes... that when he says that wealthy people should be taxed more he is doing that from a position of ignorance. Astonishing.

As for your quote...

The fundamental issue with your viewpoint is that you see capitalism and socialism as complete and polar oposites that could never meet in the middle. In your ideal world only those who could afford it would be fed, protected, healed, and educated. To hell with those in need.

Somehow this is a better existance than a society that defends and cares for it's weakest members? One that provides an equal oportunity of prosperity for all?

I am both lucky and proud to have been born Canadian. When I first started out I had nothing. Due to a very unsatisfactory home life I left home when I was 17 and dropped out of school. During my early years I had the need to make use of unemployment insurance, welfare, and food banks. I worked a blue collar job while raising my kids and as my income was so low I had my government health premiums subsidized to almost nothing. Eventually I got government student loans and went to school at night to try and change carears to improve my situation. I received grants, deducted what little interest there was on the loans from my income tax and in the end most of the debt was forgiven.

Why am I telling you this? Because today I am a professional making 6 figures a year, I have raised a family of 4 children, and I am closing in on a zero mortgage balance. None of which would have been possible in the world that you wish for.


>> ^quantumushroom:

Have some compassion for me, I have to suffer these mean comments while carrying the burden of being One with the facts.

>> ^G-bar:
Ah, Mr. Mushroom, your'e such a foolish troll. You're always there, behind the scenes, spreading your lack of compassion and lack of knowledge.
>> ^quantumushroom:
Ah, Gates. Another zillionaire apparently unaware the wealthy already pay the most in taxes, and at higher tax rates.
It's the 'bottom' 50% presently paying no income tax but gobbling up plenty of "free services" that should be chipping in.

"What do you call it when someone steals someone else's money secretly? Theft. What do you call it when someone takes someone else's money openly by force? Robbery. What do you call it when a politician takes someone else's money in taxes and gives it to someone who is more likely to vote for him? Social Justice." ---T. Sowell

"Taken literally, the top 1 percent of American households had a minimum income of $516,633 in 2010 — a figure that includes wages, government transfers and money from capital gains, dividends and other investment income." -Washington Post

In the video, Romney and the interviewer are specifically using the term "millionaires," so I have to take their exchange at face value as meaning anyone with a net worth of at least 1 million dollars. They could have a salary of $1 for all I know, but somewhere they have assets and cash available to them summing to a million dollars.

I'd be envious of an income of $500,000 all the same, since I could become a millionaire in under 3 years by just continuing to live as I do now.

>> ^cosmovitelli:

>> ^HaricotVert:
I should have clarified. The absolute definition of "millionaire" would describe anyone whose net worth is greater than $999,999.99. Many people who have barely over the $1,000,000 threshold lead rather reasonable lives, as in they don't drive Lamborghinis or own private islands or have yachts.

Surely a million doesn't get you into the 1%? Maybe in 1990.. At a guess I'd say you needed at least $5 million to qualify, no? And probably invested in a dozen properties so the 'envious' can pay off your mortgages..
Btw well done QM he's black and has big ears! Well spotted, again. Now let adults talk.

>> ^HaricotVert:

I should have clarified. The absolute definition of "millionaire" would describe anyone whose net worth is greater than $999,999.99. Many people who have barely over the $1,000,000 threshold lead rather reasonable lives, as in they don't drive Lamborghinis or own private islands or have yachts.


Surely a million doesn't get you into the 1%? Maybe in 1990.. At a guess I'd say you needed at least $5 million to qualify, no? And probably invested in a dozen properties so the 'envious' can pay off your mortgages..

Btw well done QM he's black and has big ears! Well spotted, again. Now let adults talk.

All right, I'll say it. Romney's right. I am envious of millionaires. I would venture to say that most of my peers are "jealous" too... but for one reason, and one reason only:

If I had that much wealth (or a sufficient salary to reach that much in, say, 5 years of full-time work), I could rest a LOT easier and lead a far more relaxed life. I wouldn't have to worry about mortgage payments. I wouldn't have to worry about a medical emergency. I wouldn't have to worry about putting food on the table. I wouldn't have to worry about a child's college education. I wouldn't have to worry about retirement. Although not every one of those points apply to me (yet), there exist plenty of lower- and middle-income families for which all of those and more do.

That's it. There's nothing else. There were 3.1 million millionaires in the US at last count and obviously I don't and can't know all of them personally. It is patently illogical for me to begrudge and envy all of them in any way other than the element of financial security. I don't envy their boat; I don't enjoy that kind of recreation or the upkeep associated with it. I don't envy their second house; I only need one. I don't need a 60" plasma TV (or any TV at all for that matter, why, I have Videosift! <3). I don't need a Ferrari; the speed limit is 65 everywhere. And so on. It bears mentioning that most millionaires live very frugal lives themselves, anyhow.

What I do need are the basic essentials for living, enough that I can rest easy at night. And the bigger the safety net, the more comfortable I am.

Romney seems to think this envy is on the level of revolution and "class warfare." No. I don't give a single fuck about what millionaires do with their money. The problem is this: if you raise taxes 5% on the middle and lower classes, that could mean the difference between rice and beans vs. 3 square meals a day. Raise taxes 5% on the wealthy and the difference is keeping their BMW and Benz for 1 more year as opposed to trading up to the latest and greatest model.

TL;DR - Romney's right, but for the wrong reasons.