When will Trump be impeached?

Bernie 2020

Make America Venezuela

    Or Sweden. Or Germany. Or Canada. Or Australia. Or any of dozens of other wealthy nations who have embraced socialized healthcare, subsidized education, and more regulated economies.

    Not that Mr. Sanders would necessarily transform the USA into one of those countries. I feel that while his goals are admirable, they aren't achievable in the short term: he's fighting against far too much social conditioning to effectively implement the changes he's gunning for.
    What he's espousing is a great leap forward when what is really needed are baby steps. 

If Sanders is still healthy and runs again, he'll smash Trump and romp to a landslide victory. He is currently (by FAR) the most popular politician in America. He has the populism, anti-establishment cred, and plain-spokenness of Trump, but he's intelligent, honest, and advocates policies that will actually improve the lives of 80-90% of Americans.

It would be an easy-choice.

No one can watch Sanders debate on health care with Ted Cruz and not come away realizing he is a total idiot who is simply appealing to other idiots by promising them free stuff that he in no way could ever deliver.

He has zero actual substance. He NEVER explains how he is going to actually pay for anything. The magnitude of expense of all his promises is absolutely unreal to the point that you would literally have to tax everyone at 100% on income earned over something like $30,000 per year on top of slashing the entire military budget and other aspects of spending. He is a complete goof who has never had a job and couch surfed until he was 40 years old.

If Sanders is still healthy and runs again, he'll smash Trump and romp to a landslide victory. He is currently (by FAR) the most popular politician in America. He has the populism, anti-establishment cred, and plain-spokenness of Trump, but he's intelligent, honest, and advocates policies that will actually improve the lives of 80-90% of Americans.

It would be an easy-choice.

No one can watch Sanders debate on health care with Ted Cruz and not come away realizing he is a total idiot who is simply appealing to other idiots by promising them free stuff that he in no way could ever deliver.

He has zero actual substance. He NEVER explains how he is going to actually pay for anything. The magnitude of expense of all his promises is absolutely unreal to the point that you would literally have to tax everyone at 100% on income earned over something like $30,000 per year on top of slashing the entire military budget and other aspects of spending. He is a complete goof who has never had a job and couch surfed until he was 40 years old.

I believe that Bernie Sanders quoted a price tag of $60 billion dollars a year. Consider the fact that we bomb Syria at a cost of $30 billion a year. If we would stop that, that if half the cost of Sander's program.

$60 billion for what?

If Sanders is still healthy and runs again, he'll smash Trump and romp to a landslide victory. He is currently (by FAR) the most popular politician in America. He has the populism, anti-establishment cred, and plain-spokenness of Trump, but he's intelligent, honest, and advocates policies that will actually improve the lives of 80-90% of Americans.

It would be an easy-choice.

No one can watch Sanders debate on health care with Ted Cruz and not come away realizing he is a total idiot who is simply appealing to other idiots by promising them free stuff that he in no way could ever deliver.

He has zero actual substance. He NEVER explains how he is going to actually pay for anything. The magnitude of expense of all his promises is absolutely unreal to the point that you would literally have to tax everyone at 100% on income earned over something like $30,000 per year on top of slashing the entire military budget and other aspects of spending. He is a complete goof who has never had a job and couch surfed until he was 40 years old.

I guess all the other developed democracies pay for all that same stuff magically.

A drastic cut to American military spending would still see the US at #1 in military spending.

If you reduced it by say, 33%, which again, would still leave the US military as a bloated, enormous thing that dwarfs any other country, and reversed the tax-cuts to the wealthy and corporations that Trump is proposing, you would have an AWFUL lot of money to spend.

TLDR: America can afford it just like everybody else. Demublicans CHOOSE not to.

You still didn't say how to pay for all the crap Bernie is promising. You named some costs that do not cover his promises.

Free health care

Free college

Student loan forgiveness

Bernie is a hack politician. He just names some current expenses that his supporters don't care about (much like you just did) and they sound like a lot of money but the reality is it doesn't come close to covering the free stuff he is promising.

Just saying "Free everything for everyone!" like a middle school class president candidate then rambling off some stats about the 1% isn't an actual budget. His actual budget isn't close to being feasable.

Let's start with healthcare. Universal healthcare is CHEAPER, not more expensive than America's current system. I don't know the exact figures -- I'm not even American, but by raising taxes by let's say $1,000 per average family, they (or their employers) would no longer have to pay anything for private health insurance. That's a large net savings.

Where America loses its healthcare money is private profit. Billions and billions of dollars a year disappearing into the already deepest pockets.

P.S. The American military budget, under Trump, will likely be well over a TRILLION dollars a year.

You guys really can afford to do what you want, there just has to be the will to do it.

That's why Sanders is so popular and could easily beat any Republican put before him.

You still offered no actual budget.

Give an actual budget. You can't. Because Bernie does what you just did - throw a few numbers and some political rhetoric together that appeal to dumbdumbs but ignore reality.

Bernie scammed you. He has no plan. Why do you think he bent over for Clinton? Because if he won he would be exposed as the tremendous fraud he has always been.

Just show the expenses and how to pay for them. With actual numbers. Should be easy but yet somehow it just kind of gets glossed over by not only Bernie supporters but Bernie himself 

    Or Sweden. Or Germany. Or Canada. Or Australia. Or any of dozens of other wealthy nations who have embraced socialized healthcare, subsidized education, and more regulated economies.

The problem is that the United States subsidizes that social spending in the form of our massive defense spending to ensure their security and cheap energy prices. So many people fail to see the connection to these. It's not just the % of GDP, it's the overall raw total spending from what amounts to the Lend-Lease to the Marshall Plan and the entirety of the Cold War to the War on Terror.

People point to some fighter planes or tanks or a few subs and say "Britain and France have the same military". No they don't. Britain used all of its overseas capability to send 20,000 troops to the Falklands and very nearly lost to the demoralized and ineptly led and trained Argentinians. They were a few dud bombs away from a Pyrrhic victory at best. The United States put 500,000 troops in Western Europe and 500,000 in SE Asia simultaneously. With another what, 250k in NE Asia.

We're talking orders of magnitude in spending.

Take that away and for the past 50 years, Western Europe is a military state to resist the Soviets. Mandatory conscription and the losses in productivity that entails, spending that would go to schools and hospitals is instead spent on sending 200,000 troops from France to deal with some Egyptian or Saudi dictator so you actually have petrol to power your cars.

    Or Sweden. Or Germany. Or Canada. Or Australia. Or any of dozens of other wealthy nations who have embraced socialized healthcare, subsidized education, and more regulated economies.

The problem is that the United States subsidizes that social spending in the form of our massive defense spending to ensure their security and cheap energy prices. So many people fail to see the connection to these. It's not just the % of GDP, it's the overall raw total spending from what amounts to the Lend-Lease to the Marshall Plan and the entirety of the Cold War to the War on Terror.

People point to some fighter planes or tanks or a few subs and say "Britain and France have the same military". No they don't. Britain used all of its overseas capability to send 20,000 troops to the Falklands and very nearly lost to the demoralized and ineptly led and trained Argentinians. They were a few dud bombs away from a Pyrrhic victory at best. The United States put 500,000 troops in Western Europe and 500,000 in SE Asia simultaneously. With another what, 250k in NE Asia.

We're talking orders of magnitude in spending.

Take that away and for the past 50 years, Western Europe is a military state to resist the Soviets. Mandatory conscription and the losses in productivity that entails, spending that would go to schools and hospitals is instead spent on sending 200,000 troops from France to deal with some Egyptian or Saudi dictator so you actually have petrol to power your cars.

BS! A big massive BS!

US defense spending is a massive waste of taxpayers' dollars with little to no oversight. Many programs run over budget and over time and the US government keeps throwing money at the Pentagon.

Wasn't it in the Iraq war that billions of dollars are still unaccounted for because suitcases of cash were just handed over without any oversight.

Don't blame Western Europe and Canada for America's failings to implement a responsible and expansive health care system. America chose to throw the money at private insurance companies and allow the "market" to dictate prices.

    Or Sweden. Or Germany. Or Canada. Or Australia. Or any of dozens of other wealthy nations who have embraced socialized healthcare, subsidized education, and more regulated economies.

The problem is that the United States subsidizes that social spending in the form of our massive defense spending to ensure their security and cheap energy prices. So many people fail to see the connection to these. It's not just the % of GDP, it's the overall raw total spending from what amounts to the Lend-Lease to the Marshall Plan and the entirety of the Cold War to the War on Terror.

People point to some fighter planes or tanks or a few subs and say "Britain and France have the same military". No they don't. Britain used all of its overseas capability to send 20,000 troops to the Falklands and very nearly lost to the demoralized and ineptly led and trained Argentinians. They were a few dud bombs away from a Pyrrhic victory at best. The United States put 500,000 troops in Western Europe and 500,000 in SE Asia simultaneously. With another what, 250k in NE Asia.

We're talking orders of magnitude in spending.

Take that away and for the past 50 years, Western Europe is a military state to resist the Soviets. Mandatory conscription and the losses in productivity that entails, spending that would go to schools and hospitals is instead spent on sending 200,000 troops from France to deal with some Egyptian or Saudi dictator so you actually have petrol to power your cars.

BS! A big massive BS!

US defense spending is a massive waste of taxpayers' dollars with little to no oversight. Many programs run over budget and over time and the US government keeps throwing money at the Pentagon.

Wasn't it in the Iraq war that billions of dollars are still unaccounted for because suitcases of cash were just handed over without any oversight.

Don't blame Western Europe and Canada for America's failings to implement a responsible and expansive health care system. America chose to throw the money at private insurance companies and allow the "market" to dictate prices.

Free market health care funds the R&D required to make advancements in medicine. It is the whole reason AIDS is no longer a death sentence.

It has to be paid for one way or another.

BS! A big massive BS!

US defense spending is a massive waste of taxpayers' dollars with little to no oversight. Many programs run over budget and over time and the US government keeps throwing money at the Pentagon.

Wasn't it in the Iraq war that billions of dollars are still unaccounted for because suitcases of cash were just handed over without any oversight.

Don't blame Western Europe and Canada for America's failings to implement a responsible and expansive health care system. America chose to throw the money at private insurance companies and allow the "market" to dictate prices.

That America could spend its defense budget more wisely and not get involved in foreign intervention does not contradict the point that the nations of Europe have had their socialized programs subsidized by U.S. expenditures on defense and foreign aid programs beginning with the Lend Lease.

Could America have a better health care system that included expansion of social medical programs? I don't doubt it. We could certainly take 20% off the top of defense spending and transfer it to health care, with another 20% to reduce debt or taxes, have little in the way of decline in military superiority, and expand health care.

But for Europe to have been truly self-sufficient defense wise during the Cold War, they would have had to undergo massive expenditures in defense and implemented things like mandatory conscription and also been involved in large-scale military conflicts that would have drained money and manpower.

BS! A big massive BS!

US defense spending is a massive waste of taxpayers' dollars with little to no oversight. Many programs run over budget and over time and the US government keeps throwing money at the Pentagon.

Wasn't it in the Iraq war that billions of dollars are still unaccounted for because suitcases of cash were just handed over without any oversight.

Don't blame Western Europe and Canada for America's failings to implement a responsible and expansive health care system. America chose to throw the money at private insurance companies and allow the "market" to dictate prices.

That America could spend its defense budget more wisely and not get involved in foreign intervention does not contradict the point that the nations of Europe have had their socialized programs subsidized by U.S. expenditures on defense and foreign aid programs beginning with the Lend Lease.

Could America have a better health care system that included expansion of social medical programs? I don't doubt it. We could certainly take 20% off the top of defense spending and transfer it to health care, with another 20% to reduce debt or taxes, have little in the way of decline in military superiority, and expand health care.

But for Europe to have been truly self-sufficient defense wise during the Cold War, they would have had to undergo massive expenditures in defense and implemented things like mandatory conscription and also been involved in large-scale military conflicts that would have drained money and manpower.

One point: under the terms of the Lend-Lease with the UK in mind, the British government was not permitted to use to terms of the Lend-Lease and later the Anglo-American loan to subsidize their social welfare system. Instead, cuts were made by the UK in its overseas and domestic spending.

Once again, your coming up with a "solve" and making up your own terms of the problem.
1 + 1 does not equal 3.

BS! A big massive BS!

US defense spending is a massive waste of taxpayers' dollars with little to no oversight. Many programs run over budget and over time and the US government keeps throwing money at the Pentagon.

Wasn't it in the Iraq war that billions of dollars are still unaccounted for because suitcases of cash were just handed over without any oversight.

Don't blame Western Europe and Canada for America's failings to implement a responsible and expansive health care system. America chose to throw the money at private insurance companies and allow the "market" to dictate prices.

That America could spend its defense budget more wisely and not get involved in foreign intervention does not contradict the point that the nations of Europe have had their socialized programs subsidized by U.S. expenditures on defense and foreign aid programs beginning with the Lend Lease.

Could America have a better health care system that included expansion of social medical programs? I don't doubt it. We could certainly take 20% off the top of defense spending and transfer it to health care, with another 20% to reduce debt or taxes, have little in the way of decline in military superiority, and expand health care.

But for Europe to have been truly self-sufficient defense wise during the Cold War, they would have had to undergo massive expenditures in defense and implemented things like mandatory conscription and also been involved in large-scale military conflicts that would have drained money and manpower.

One point: under the terms of the Lend-Lease with the UK in mind, the British government was not permitted to use to terms of the Lend-Lease and later the Anglo-American loan to subsidize their social welfare system. Instead, cuts were made by the UK in its overseas and domestic spending.

Once again, your coming up with a "solve" and making up your own terms of the problem.
1 + 1 does not equal 3.

Literally addressed none of the issues he just told you about.

BS! A big massive BS!

US defense spending is a massive waste of taxpayers' dollars with little to no oversight. Many programs run over budget and over time and the US government keeps throwing money at the Pentagon.

Wasn't it in the Iraq war that billions of dollars are still unaccounted for because suitcases of cash were just handed over without any oversight.

Don't blame Western Europe and Canada for America's failings to implement a responsible and expansive health care system. America chose to throw the money at private insurance companies and allow the "market" to dictate prices.

That America could spend its defense budget more wisely and not get involved in foreign intervention does not contradict the point that the nations of Europe have had their socialized programs subsidized by U.S. expenditures on defense and foreign aid programs beginning with the Lend Lease.

Could America have a better health care system that included expansion of social medical programs? I don't doubt it. We could certainly take 20% off the top of defense spending and transfer it to health care, with another 20% to reduce debt or taxes, have little in the way of decline in military superiority, and expand health care.

But for Europe to have been truly self-sufficient defense wise during the Cold War, they would have had to undergo massive expenditures in defense and implemented things like mandatory conscription and also been involved in large-scale military conflicts that would have drained money and manpower.

One point: under the terms of the Lend-Lease with the UK in mind, the British government was not permitted to use to terms of the Lend-Lease and later the Anglo-American loan to subsidize their social welfare system. Instead, cuts were made by the UK in its overseas and domestic spending.

Once again, your coming up with a "solve" and making up your own terms of the problem.
1 + 1 does not equal 3.

Literally addressed none of the issues he just told you about.

Steels' point was primarily because of the Aid given to the Allies by the US around WW2, it helped them to subsidize their social welfare programs like health insurance, which they would have been unable to do otherwise.

My point was that although the Aid was given it did not contribute to whether or not those countries' could implement their social welfare programs. It was a condition set by the US of the Lend-Lease and other loans that they could not be used for social welfare systems.

And after WW2 the allies had to repay their loans to the US with interest; not to mention the huge transfer of technologies and foodstuffs afforded to the US by Allied nations.

Kamala Harris keeping the heat on Jeff Sessions, who's not able to cite the policy that he repeatedly invokes to evade questions he'd rather not answer~

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DlZTLrRdwfM

This all despite the fact that Trump never asserted executive privilege to keep their conversations secret.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/06/15/us/politics/executive-privilege-sessions-trump.html

BS! A big massive BS!

US defense spending is a massive waste of taxpayers' dollars with little to no oversight. Many programs run over budget and over time and the US government keeps throwing money at the Pentagon.

Wasn't it in the Iraq war that billions of dollars are still unaccounted for because suitcases of cash were just handed over without any oversight.

Don't blame Western Europe and Canada for America's failings to implement a responsible and expansive health care system. America chose to throw the money at private insurance companies and allow the "market" to dictate prices.

That America could spend its defense budget more wisely and not get involved in foreign intervention does not contradict the point that the nations of Europe have had their socialized programs subsidized by U.S. expenditures on defense and foreign aid programs beginning with the Lend Lease.

Could America have a better health care system that included expansion of social medical programs? I don't doubt it. We could certainly take 20% off the top of defense spending and transfer it to health care, with another 20% to reduce debt or taxes, have little in the way of decline in military superiority, and expand health care.

But for Europe to have been truly self-sufficient defense wise during the Cold War, they would have had to undergo massive expenditures in defense and implemented things like mandatory conscription and also been involved in large-scale military conflicts that would have drained money and manpower.

One point: under the terms of the Lend-Lease with the UK in mind, the British government was not permitted to use to terms of the Lend-Lease and later the Anglo-American loan to subsidize their social welfare system. Instead, cuts were made by the UK in its overseas and domestic spending.

Once again, your coming up with a "solve" and making up your own terms of the problem.
1 + 1 does not equal 3.

Literally addressed none of the issues he just told you about.

Steels' point was primarily because of the Aid given to the Allies by the US around WW2, it helped them to subsidize their social welfare programs like health insurance, which they would have been unable to do otherwise.

My point was that although the Aid was given it did not contribute to whether or not those countries' could implement their social welfare programs. It was a condition set by the US of the Lend-Lease and other loans that they could not be used for social welfare systems.

And after WW2 the allies had to repay their loans to the US with interest; not to mention the huge transfer of technologies and foodstuffs afforded to the US by Allied nations.

That wasn't his point at all. Why would you limit the time frame to "around WWII"?

SINCE WWII the U.S. has essentially been the military of Europe. It spent unreal amounts of money during the cold war keeping the Soviet Union out of western Europe. It does all the military operations in the Middle East (and all over the world) that keep European companies operating and grant them competitive advantage.  The U.S. has built bases all over the world and uses them to not only look out for American interests but European interests as well.

The U.S. and western Europe have been partners but Europeans don't have to contribute to a giant military machine that spans the globe. You think Sweden doesn't get invaded by more powerful countries because their healthcare is good? No, its because of the military might of the U.S. You think people in Switzerland enjoy a super high quality of life because they just have a lot of natural resources or something? Nope, its because their economic interests are protected with the force necessary to control and manipulate the resources of other countries (which is what all European nations do to the global south)

But for Europe to have been truly self-sufficient defense wise during the Cold War, they would have had to undergo massive expenditures in defense and implemented things like mandatory conscription and also been involved in large-scale military conflicts that would have drained money and manpower.

   Not to detract from your points (some of which I agree with) but most NATO countries in Europe actually *did* have mandatory conscription when the USSR was around. While many dropped it in the early 90s, several still require mandatory military service.

   Worryingly, Sweden is reinstating the draft this year due to increasing tensions with Russia. I imagine that several other countries may follow suit.

BS! A big massive BS!

US defense spending is a massive waste of taxpayers' dollars with little to no oversight. Many programs run over budget and over time and the US government keeps throwing money at the Pentagon.

Wasn't it in the Iraq war that billions of dollars are still unaccounted for because suitcases of cash were just handed over without any oversight.

Don't blame Western Europe and Canada for America's failings to implement a responsible and expansive health care system. America chose to throw the money at private insurance companies and allow the "market" to dictate prices.

That America could spend its defense budget more wisely and not get involved in foreign intervention does not contradict the point that the nations of Europe have had their socialized programs subsidized by U.S. expenditures on defense and foreign aid programs beginning with the Lend Lease.

Could America have a better health care system that included expansion of social medical programs? I don't doubt it. We could certainly take 20% off the top of defense spending and transfer it to health care, with another 20% to reduce debt or taxes, have little in the way of decline in military superiority, and expand health care.

But for Europe to have been truly self-sufficient defense wise during the Cold War, they would have had to undergo massive expenditures in defense and implemented things like mandatory conscription and also been involved in large-scale military conflicts that would have drained money and manpower.

One point: under the terms of the Lend-Lease with the UK in mind, the British government was not permitted to use to terms of the Lend-Lease and later the Anglo-American loan to subsidize their social welfare system. Instead, cuts were made by the UK in its overseas and domestic spending.

Once again, your coming up with a "solve" and making up your own terms of the problem.
1 + 1 does not equal 3.

Literally addressed none of the issues he just told you about.

Steels' point was primarily because of the Aid given to the Allies by the US around WW2, it helped them to subsidize their social welfare programs like health insurance, which they would have been unable to do otherwise.

My point was that although the Aid was given it did not contribute to whether or not those countries' could implement their social welfare programs. It was a condition set by the US of the Lend-Lease and other loans that they could not be used for social welfare systems.

And after WW2 the allies had to repay their loans to the US with interest; not to mention the huge transfer of technologies and foodstuffs afforded to the US by Allied nations.

That wasn't his point at all. Why would you limit the time frame to "around WWII"?

SINCE WWII the U.S. has essentially been the military of Europe. It spent unreal amounts of money during the cold war keeping the Soviet Union out of western Europe. It does all the military operations in the Middle East (and all over the world) that keep European companies operating and grant them competitive advantage.  The U.S. has built bases all over the world and uses them to not only look out for American interests but European interests as well.

The U.S. and western Europe have been partners but Europeans don't have to contribute to a giant military machine that spans the globe. You think Sweden doesn't get invaded by more powerful countries because their healthcare is good? No, its because of the military might of the U.S. You think people in Switzerland enjoy a super high quality of life because they just have a lot of natural resources or something? Nope, its because their economic interests are protected with the force necessary to control and manipulate the resources of other countries (which is what all European nations do to the global south)

Again, you're looking at the "how" they were able to implement their healthcare systems and not the "why" they were able to implement and choose an universal (socialized) healthcare system.

They were primarily financed by extra taxation and not just because the US had some troops lying around keeping the Soviets at bay. It also begs the question, did the US have to invest so heavily on militarily spending during that period?

If the US is able to put trillions into their military infrastructure over the years then why can't they implement a better and more affordable healthcare system. That is built for the people and not for the advantage of corporations? Answer that!

Bernie 2020

Make America Venezuela

    Or Sweden. Or Germany. Or Canada. Or Australia. Or any of dozens of other wealthy nations who have embraced socialized healthcare, subsidized education, and more regulated economies.

    Not that Mr. Sanders would necessarily transform the USA into one of those countries. I feel that while his goals are admirable, they aren't achievable in the short term: he's fighting against far too much social conditioning to effectively implement the changes he's gunning for.
    What he's espousing is a great leap forward when what is really needed are baby steps. 

"These days, the American dream is more apt to be realized in South America, in places such as Ecuador, Venezuela and Argentina, where incomes are actually more equal today than they are in the land of Horatio Alger. Who's the banana republic now?"

Bernie fails to mention  "Sweden. Or Germany. Or Canada. Or Australia."

https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/must-read/close-the-gaps-disparities-that-threaten-america

Steels' point was primarily because of the Aid given to the Allies by the US around WW2, it helped them to subsidize their social welfare programs like health insurance, which they would have been unable to do otherwise.

My point was that although the Aid was given it did not contribute to whether or not those countries' could implement their social welfare programs. It was a condition set by the US of the Lend-Lease and other loans that they could not be used for social welfare systems.

And after WW2 the allies had to repay their loans to the US with interest; not to mention the huge transfer of technologies and foodstuffs afforded to the US by Allied nations.

Lend-Lease enabled those countries to exist in the first place. Then the Marshall Plan to help Europe rebuild. Then you had the U.S. providing defense that entire time. Who do you think kept the Soviet Army out of West Berlin? It wasn't the Bundeswehr. And because West Germany didn't have to maintain a 2.5 million man strong standing army, its money could be spent on things like socialized medicine.

Not to detract from your points (some of which I agree with) but most NATO countries in Europe actually *did* have mandatory conscription when the USSR was around. While many dropped it in the early 90s, several still require mandatory military service.

   Worryingly, Sweden is reinstating the draft this year due to increasing tensions with Russia. I imagine that several other countries may follow suit.

Of course some did, but its more than just conscription (and the lost productivity it entails), it is also things like not having to develop a nuclear program. If Finland had been completely independent with no U.S. political concerns over "domino theories" and the like, the Finnish state would have essentially turned into something like North Korea, only with trade. Massive numbers of people in the military, crash course towards nuclear weapons, military first spending, etc.

They were primarily financed by extra taxation and not just because the US had some troops lying around keeping the Soviets at bay.

If you think it was just "some troops lying around to keep the Soviets at bay", you have no idea of the scale and enormity of U.S. military expenditure throughout the Cold War. The amount of money those countries individually would have had to spend to develop their own nuclear programs, their own navies capable of maintaining global trade and supply routes, the expenditure to deploy troops overseas 5-10 years fighting some war in the desert, etc. etc. There's a reason such conflicts bankrupt nations. It's not a simple matter of having an extra 100,000 guys with Lee Enfields.

If the US is able to put trillions into their military infrastructure over the years then why can't they implement a better and more affordable healthcare system. That is built for the people and not for the advantage of corporations? Answer that!

Because in order to do that it would require raising taxes which would hurt the economy. Money doesn't grow on trees. Every dollar you take in the form of taxes is a dollar that could potentially be used for growth and economic activity.

This was essentially the arrangement that was implemented in order to defeat Communism. The nations of Europe and East Asia would focus on their economies. We'd handle everything militarily. They'd help us by buying up our debt. It worked. This was the system implemented by the so called 'Wise Men' of the early Cold War. It was designed to help us win the ideological conflict with the Soviet Union. The people of Europe could live a life of growth and luxury without having to bear the costs in soldiers dying and massive armies like in the past.

I'm not saying socialized medicine is a bad thing or that America couldn't get it to work. I am saying that Europeans (and their fans) who come on here and talk about 'Stupid Americans and your huge military and crappy healthcare' are the real idiots because they have a simplistic view of history and how things have worked since WWII. 

BS! A big massive BS!

US defense spending is a massive waste of taxpayers' dollars with little to no oversight. Many programs run over budget and over time and the US government keeps throwing money at the Pentagon.

Wasn't it in the Iraq war that billions of dollars are still unaccounted for because suitcases of cash were just handed over without any oversight.

Don't blame Western Europe and Canada for America's failings to implement a responsible and expansive health care system. America chose to throw the money at private insurance companies and allow the "market" to dictate prices.

That America could spend its defense budget more wisely and not get involved in foreign intervention does not contradict the point that the nations of Europe have had their socialized programs subsidized by U.S. expenditures on defense and foreign aid programs beginning with the Lend Lease.

Could America have a better health care system that included expansion of social medical programs? I don't doubt it. We could certainly take 20% off the top of defense spending and transfer it to health care, with another 20% to reduce debt or taxes, have little in the way of decline in military superiority, and expand health care.

But for Europe to have been truly self-sufficient defense wise during the Cold War, they would have had to undergo massive expenditures in defense and implemented things like mandatory conscription and also been involved in large-scale military conflicts that would have drained money and manpower.

One point: under the terms of the Lend-Lease with the UK in mind, the British government was not permitted to use to terms of the Lend-Lease and later the Anglo-American loan to subsidize their social welfare system. Instead, cuts were made by the UK in its overseas and domestic spending.

Once again, your coming up with a "solve" and making up your own terms of the problem.
1 + 1 does not equal 3.

Literally addressed none of the issues he just told you about.

Steels' point was primarily because of the Aid given to the Allies by the US around WW2, it helped them to subsidize their social welfare programs like health insurance, which they would have been unable to do otherwise.

My point was that although the Aid was given it did not contribute to whether or not those countries' could implement their social welfare programs. It was a condition set by the US of the Lend-Lease and other loans that they could not be used for social welfare systems.

And after WW2 the allies had to repay their loans to the US with interest; not to mention the huge transfer of technologies and foodstuffs afforded to the US by Allied nations.

That wasn't his point at all. Why would you limit the time frame to "around WWII"?

SINCE WWII the U.S. has essentially been the military of Europe. It spent unreal amounts of money during the cold war keeping the Soviet Union out of western Europe. It does all the military operations in the Middle East (and all over the world) that keep European companies operating and grant them competitive advantage.  The U.S. has built bases all over the world and uses them to not only look out for American interests but European interests as well.

The U.S. and western Europe have been partners but Europeans don't have to contribute to a giant military machine that spans the globe. You think Sweden doesn't get invaded by more powerful countries because their healthcare is good? No, its because of the military might of the U.S. You think people in Switzerland enjoy a super high quality of life because they just have a lot of natural resources or something? Nope, its because their economic interests are protected with the force necessary to control and manipulate the resources of other countries (which is what all European nations do to the global south)

Again, you're looking at the "how" they were able to implement their healthcare systems and not the "why" they were able to implement and choose an universal (socialized) healthcare system.

They were primarily financed by extra taxation and not just because the US had some troops lying around keeping the Soviets at bay. It also begs the question, did the US have to invest so heavily on militarily spending during that period?

If the US is able to put trillions into their military infrastructure over the years then why can't they implement a better and more affordable healthcare system. That is built for the people and not for the advantage of corporations? Answer that!

You just don't quite seem to be able to grasp that without the ifrastructure of the U.S. military the economies of Europe would be 3rd world. They rely pretty much entirely on manipulating other countries and they require the threat of force to achieve economic prosperity.

Their tax rates are extremely high as it is, add in actually having to fund a military that is capable of insuring their economic interests around the globe and suddenly their system falls apart.

The military infrastructure has to be in place

The free market health care has to be in place in order to fund the advancement of medicine.

Europe doesn't have universal healthcare because of their system, its because of the U.S. system

The U.S. system undeniably funds European healthcare and is responsible for the advancement of medicine.

It can't be good when one of your closest allies starts to openly take the piss out of you in a room full of reporters.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=d27K5t7CWPU

It can't be good when one of your closest allies starts to openly take the piss out of you in a room full of reporters.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=d27K5t7CWPU

Helping Trump get re-elected. The more uppity foreigners insult Trump the more it unites the working class that got him elected in the first place due to feeling increasingly attacked by elitists.

They are only helping him with this stuff. Every time some limp-wristed wimp like John Oliver makes a Trump joke a laborer votes for Trump.

They are successfully making a billionaire the symbol of the american rural working class - his only path to victory.

It can't be good when one of your closest allies starts to openly take the piss out of you in a room full of reporters.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=d27K5t7CWPU

Helping Trump get re-elected. The more uppity foreigners insult Trump the more it unites the working class that got him elected in the first place due to feeling increasingly attacked by elitists.

They are only helping him with this stuff. Every time some limp-wristed wimp like John Oliver makes a Trump joke a laborer votes for Trump.

They are successfully making a billionaire the symbol of the american rural working class - his only path to victory.

You're probably right. There isn't much that The Donald can do wrong in the eyes of his radical supporters.

Just as a matter of interest though where would you draw the line?  If he had a bout of fecal  incontinence in public would it make any difference? I don't mean metaphorically either.

It can't be good when one of your closest allies starts to openly take the piss out of you in a room full of reporters.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=d27K5t7CWPU

Helping Trump get re-elected. The more uppity foreigners insult Trump the more it unites the working class that got him elected in the first place due to feeling increasingly attacked by elitists.

They are only helping him with this stuff. Every time some limp-wristed wimp like John Oliver makes a Trump joke a laborer votes for Trump.

They are successfully making a billionaire the symbol of the american rural working class - his only path to victory.

You're probably right. There isn't much that The Donald can do wrong in the eyes of his radical supporters.

Just as a matter of interest though where would you draw the line?  If he had a bout of fecal  incontinence in public would it make any difference? I don't mean metaphorically either.

It would probably depend on how the media ran with it. If the people who demonize the entire middle of the country and the south and the rust belt keep making it the elite vs. everyone else and they use Trump as the symbol for everyone else... he could probably crap himself everyday on a live broadcast and the result will be the same.

People (on either side) don't vote on issues, they vote based upon feelings. Unless he goes against some super candidate I can only see him winning bigger the more the media doubles down.