Why are we destroying America?

[dogman_1234]

Why do we let ideology get in the way of creating a better future of our youth, our future business, political and civil leaders. why are we letting this country fall because of what we want in essence to a perfect utopia? Why are we allowing this country to become a dystopian world?

why am I afraid that we will destroy what we have built?

Why must we adopt Liberal/Conservative dogma to how we run our country? Why can't we run it how it was to be, by the people for the people: But, the people have lost what it means. What does it mean? How do we go back to what it is we need to do to get back on our feet?

What happened to this country? why can't we work together?

I would like answers. If you guys fight over your 'ideas' the you might as well vote for an asshole who will blatantly destroy this country and burn it. You guys are the new Nero's of this world.

 

[MysticMiner]

Why can't we? Who is we? And who are the politicians?

 

[blackhawk1928]

Left-wing wants a perfect socialistic utopia, because all of them are delusional people with profitphobia. For the most part moderate and conservatives fight for a realistic society with rights and freedoms and keep let the economy grow.

To get back on our feet, we need a business friendly economy so jobs don't swarm overseas which involves lowering taxes, some de-regulation, less government spending to stop inflation.

 

[Silmarunya]

Left-wing wants a perfect socialistic utopia, because all of them are delusional people with profitphobia. For the most part moderate and conservatives fight for a realistic society with rights and freedoms and keep let the economy grow.

To get back on our feet, we need a business friendly economy so jobs don't swarm overseas which involves lowering taxes, some de-regulation, less government spending to stop inflation.

Okay, I hate to burst your bubble, but...

Let's take a look at the best performing western economies. Sweden, Germany, parts of Canada, the Netherlands, Finland,... are all countries that currently outperform the US on every single indicator (economic growth, public debt, education, poverty,...).

What do all of them have in common? They are what you call 'socialist'. They have higher taxes (Sweden has the highest tax rate in the world) and public spending than the US, full social security and free education.

Taxes do not chase away corporations. That is, if business gets something in return. A public service that is fast and efficient. A healthy workforce. A well educated population. Well maintained infrastructure. Oh, and it also helps if taxes are clear and devoid of complicated deductions and loopholes.

The argument behind lowering taxes usually is that it reduces the cost of doing business to the point of it being on par with that in emerging economies. Sorry folks, but that's an illusion, even at zero taxation. Businesses stay in the West because here, they are certain they can find well educated employees, get their goods delivered in time using excellent infrastructure and can do business with legal certainty. In short, because the west is advanced.

Quality education for all, top tier universities, transport and infrastructure. Those are things businesses need and they are things that have to be funded with public money.

Stop thinking you can outperform China, India or Vietnam through cost cutting. Instead, we have to stay ahead through excellence, something Scandinavia realised long ago and is now picking the fruits of.

 

[gropouce]

You guys are the new Nero's of this world.

First Rome, then Neron... are you studying history?

During his (short) reign, he has made some good things for his people. successful wars, good monetary politicy encouraged the arts and architecture....
He is known for the great fire of Rome, but some historians dispute this version.

You make reference to Italian history, remember that these are the initiators of la dolce vita.

[flash=560,349]http://www.youtube.com/v/kIjkW6iyXNo?version=3&hl=fr_FR&rel=0[/flash]

 

[blackhawk1928]

Okay, I hate to burst your bubble, but...

Let's take a look at the best performing western economies. Sweden, Germany, parts of Canada, the Netherlands, Finland,... are all countries that currently outperform the US on every single indicator (economic growth, public debt, education, poverty,...).

What do all of them have in common? They are what you call 'socialist'. They have higher taxes (Sweden has the highest tax rate in the world) and public spending than the US, full social security and free education.

Taxes do not chase away corporations. That is, if business gets something in return. A public service that is fast and efficient. A healthy workforce. A well educated population. Well maintained infrastructure. Oh, and it also helps if taxes are clear and devoid of complicated deductions and loopholes.

The argument behind lowering taxes usually is that it reduces the cost of doing business to the point of it being on par with that in emerging economies. Sorry folks, but that's an illusion, even at zero taxation. Businesses stay in the West because here, they are certain they can find well educated employees, get their goods delivered in time using excellent infrastructure and can do business with legal certainty. In short, because the west is advanced.

Quality education for all, top tier universities, transport and infrastructure. Those are things businesses need and they are things that have to be funded with public money.

Stop thinking you can outperform China, India or Vietnam through cost cutting. Instead, we have to stay ahead through excellence, something Scandinavia realised long ago and is now picking the fruits of.

mhm, I hate to burst your bubble, but public debt, education, and poverty really don't have much to do with your system of government...capitalist, communist, or socialist, you can have varying numbers in all three of the categories. Economic growth is pummeled in the United States right now due to a socialist uprising in the last 3 years. Your argument isn't working.

Taxes actually do chase away corporations, and so does things like controlled wages. For businesses that stay here, taxation gets passed down the consumer. So any tax increase on corporations will automatically result in increased prices of products.

And lastly, the United States economy is by far the most powerful world economy...China's economy may be growing faster right now, but it still has years and years to go to reach ours. We can compete with any economy and win easily.

 

[Silmarunya]

mhm, I hate to burst your bubble, but public debt, education, and poverty really don't have much to do with your system of government...capitalist, communist, or socialist, you can have varying numbers in all three of the categories. Economic growth is pummeled in the United States right now due to a socialist uprising in the last 3 years. Your argument isn't working.

Taxes actually do chase away corporations, and so does things like controlled wages. For businesses that stay here, taxation gets passed down the consumer. So any tax increase on corporations will automatically result in increased prices of products.

And lastly, the United States economy is by far the most powerful world economy...China's economy may be growing faster right now, but it still has years and years to go to reach ours. We can compete with any economy and win easily.

1) You didn't answer my point that socialist countries like Germany or the Scandinavian nations outperform America economically, have far less poverty and enjoy lower public debt than America did at any point in its recent history.

2) A socialist uprising? Calling Obama's policies socialist is like calling a person who is 2kg overweight morbidly obese. In most of Europe, he would be centre right.

3) Taxes chase away corporations why exactly? Because they raise costs? Then why are so many companies staying and even moving into Sweden, Germany, Finland and so on? All of these nations have taxes that are FAR higher than those in the US.

Low margin manufacturing is cost sensitive, but that's about the only area of the economy. All high tech industries, agriculture, retail and so on depend more on the quality of a nation's infrastructure, employees and civil service than on low costs.

4) The US is powerful, but not exceptionally powerful on a per capita basis...

 

[Silmarunya]

You can't "fundamentally transform" the country until you collapse/destroy the current system first.

Yes you can. Most of the biggest social and political changes in history were the product of evolution, not revolution. Empires don't collapse in a single catastrophic invasion, they are gradually hollowed out. A society doesn't get rich in a single swoop, it grows steadily. A welfare state isn't built with a single law, it's a process that takes decades. Human rights didn't came along with a single document, they were the result of centuries of social and cultural change.

 

[blackhawk1928]

1) You didn't answer my point that socialist countries like Germany or the Scandinavian nations outperform America economically, have far less poverty and enjoy lower public debt than America did at any point in its recent history.

2) A socialist uprising? Calling Obama's policies socialist is like calling a person who is 2kg overweight morbidly obese. In most of Europe, he would be centre right.

3) Taxes chase away corporations why exactly? Because they raise costs? Then why are so many companies staying and even moving into Sweden, Germany, Finland and so on? All of these nations have taxes that are FAR higher than those in the US.

Low margin manufacturing is cost sensitive, but that's about the only area of the economy. All high tech industries, agriculture, retail and so on depend more on the quality of a nation's infrastructure, employees and civil service than on low costs.

4) The US is powerful, but not exceptionally powerful on a per capita basis...

Do you know the definition of socialist?...I'm not sure you do if you deny the fact that Obama's policies are.

1) America is also socialist, Germany and Scandinavian outperform right now, but when we once were more capitalist, nobody outperformed us. If our country gets into the right hands again, hopefully in november 4th 2012, and we will eliminated all of the failed socialist policies implemented in the last few years, our economy will grow and we will once again be cream of the crop in the world You are acting as if america is capitalist...

2) Europe is a giant failure...entirely socialist, and so is obama.

3) Yes, taxes raise costs for the corporation, and so to compensate for lost profits must pass prices down to the consumer...and they go to asia, where somebody will do a job for 30k where in the U.S would cost 100k. Its cheaper and gets more profits. Companies ALSO go to europe, because europe is a large market...

4) Not right now, but we were and we will soon...

 

[gropouce]

The biggest social and political changes in histories were the product of evolution, not revolution.

Notwithstanding (

) the history of my country I can't be agreed with that.

 

[Silmarunya]

Do you know the definition of socialist?...I'm not sure you do if you deny the fact that Obama's policies are.

1) America is also socialist, Germany and Scandinavian outperform right now, but when we once were more capitalist, nobody outperformed us. If our country gets into the right hands again, hopefully in november 4th 2012, and we will eliminated all of the failed socialist policies implemented in the last few years, our economy will grow and we will once again be cream of the crop in the world You are acting as if america is capitalist...

2) Europe is a giant failure...entirely socialist, and so is obama.

3) Yes, taxes raise costs for the corporation, and so to compensate for lost profits must pass prices down to the consumer...and they go to asia, where somebody will do a job for 30k where in the U.S would cost 100k. Its cheaper and gets more profits. Companies ALSO go to europe, because europe is a large market...

4) Not right now, but we were and we will soon...

1) America isn't socialist today. At worst, it has tiny fractions of badly diluted socialism here and there, but that's like saying a drip of whiskey in a bottle of water makes for a strong drink.

2) A giant failure? In what way?

- Education? America is middle of the pack in the PISA rankings, Northwestern European countries are near or at the top.
- Growth? Northwestern Europe outperforms the US. Not just right now, but throughout its history (especially when you ignore America's faster population growth - a growing population is a source of growth that isn't thanks to a nation's talents or government quality) it didn't outgrow Europe either.
- Health care? America's healthcare is more expensive and of lower quality than Europe's.
- Public debt? Both are as bad as each other, but at least Northwestern Europe hasn't gotten a downgrade for decades.

3) Europe isn't a larger market. By your logic, countries like Finland, the Netherlands or South Korea should be developing countries. After all, they're small markets.

4) You really think you can compete with Asia for the kinds of jobs that Asian peasants can and will do cheaper than we do? With no trade unions and zero taxation, we still would have higher labour costs. But that's okay, we should let go those sectors. Countries in the Sahara have to accept they'll never be agricultural giants and we have to accept we can't make batches of cheap shirts.

Instead, focus on things we do best: high margin manufacturing, technology, agriculture and services. Those are industries for which labour cost or taxes aren't an issue. Things like finding enough engineers and skilled technicians, getting your goods around the country with pinpoint accuracy is an issue or knowing you are protected by clear laws that don't favour anyone are however.

In other words, world class education and health care are far better sources of growth than low taxes. However, I'm wasting my time with you. You argue from an ideological point of view, not with facts...

 

[Silmarunya]

Notwithstanding (http://img.infos-du-net.com/forum/images/perso/kneusol.gif) the history of my country I can't be agreed with that.

Even the formation of America was hardly the product of a 'revolution'. Or rather, the revolution was part of a far more gradual process. Colonists didn't just wake up one day thinking 'hmmm, let's get the British out'. And the revolution was just a first step, it took decades before anything resembling a United States was formed.

 

[Gulli]

^ good points. Some people just won't understand that an Asian won't do a job for 30k, he'll do it for 5k and we should not wish to compete with that. If people would just read up on the living conditions of Asian workers today or Western workers in the 19th century... that's what happens without unions and regulations.

And hey, as Asians demand their rights their wages will increase. In the end only sh*tholes like Afghanistan and Somalia will offer cheap labor but without infrastructure and security no one will invest there so the rest of the world doesn't have to compete with cheap labor anymore.

 

[blackhawk1928]

1) America isn't socialist today. At worst, it has tiny fractions of badly diluted socialism here and there, but that's like saying a drip of whiskey in a bottle of water makes for a strong drink.

2) A giant failure? In what way?

- Education? America is middle of the pack in the PISA rankings, Northwestern European countries are near or at the top.
- Growth? Northwestern Europe outperforms the US. Not just right now, but throughout its history (especially when you ignore America's faster population growth - a growing population is a source of growth that isn't thanks to a nation's talents or government quality) it didn't outgrow Europe either.
- Health care? America's healthcare is more expensive and of lower quality than Europe's.
- Public debt? Both are as bad as each other, but at least Northwestern Europe hasn't gotten a downgrade for decades.

3) Europe isn't a larger market. By your logic, countries like Finland, the Netherlands or South Korea should be developing countries. After all, they're small markets.

4) You really think you can compete with Asia for the kinds of jobs that Asian peasants can and will do cheaper than we do? With no trade unions and zero taxation, we still would have higher labour costs. But that's okay, we should let go those sectors. Countries in the Sahara have to accept they'll never be agricultural giants and we have to accept we can't make batches of cheap shirts.

Instead, focus on things we do best: high margin manufacturing, technology, agriculture and services. Those are industries for which labour cost or taxes aren't an issue. Things like finding enough engineers and skilled technicians, getting your goods around the country with pinpoint accuracy is an issue or knowing you are protected by clear laws that don't favour anyone are however.

In other words, world class education and health care are far better sources of growth than low taxes. However, I'm wasting my time with you. You argue from an ideological point of view, not with facts...

1) America isn't socialist?...psht, yeah right. A 35% on a salary 380k and over...thats 133k of just income taxes...for 133k you can buy a car or a house...please...don't be ridiculous. Not to mention, a lot of this money goes towards benefits for entitlements. Entitlements include:

-Food stamps
-Medicare
-Medicaid
-SSI
-Section 8 housing
-The list goes on for like 10 more...

Thats basically taking money from have's and giving it to have-nots...thats redistribution of wealth. I agree that there should be some entitlements but nowhere near the amount they are at right now...im perfectly fine with social security for those people who payed into it, but we have people immigrating in retiring age who didn't pay a dime in taxes their whole life to this country and they earn entitlements like social security...thats socialism. Also socialized healthcare.

Buddy, who are you kidding? Stop lying to yourself.

2) Europe is giant failure...out of about 50 countries, less then 15 have AAA credit ratings, a bunch have already bankrupt (greece, spain...etc...) and others are on the verge of collapse. In europe, the employee is the boss, not the employer (which doesn't make sense), and your healthcare system absolutely sucks.

-Education: Yes, american education needs improvement.
-Growth: Psht...right now you may be beating us, but thats because we are under socialist control, if we get an american back in the whitehouse, that will change. And secondly, you can't be seriously surprised that the EU is beating the U.S....its 27 countries (EU) against 1 country...you should be embarrased if we are half of what you are LOL
-Healthcare: Once again, who are you kidding buddy, do some research, healthcare is a lot of times un affordable in the U.S perhaps, but it is the best in the world. Best doctors and best technology here in the United States...10x better then European sorry ass healthcare with technology 10 years behind the U.S.
-Public Debt: I agree...a democrat-controlled government...we get a downgrade, the same socialists controlling you except not as smart. As I said, our problems right now are the result of leaders like European ones...as I said before, once we get an american back in office....this will change

3) Stop putting words into my mouth, I never said europe was a larger market in comparison to anything...i said it was a large market in general

4) I agree

 

[Silmarunya]

1) America isn't socialist?...psht, yeah right. A 35% on a salary 380k and over...thats 133k of just income taxes...for 133k you can buy a car or a house...please...don't be ridiculous. Not to mention, a lot of this money goes towards benefits for entitlements. Entitlements include:

-Food stamps
-Medicare
-Medicaid
-SSI
-Section 8 housing
-The list goes on for like 10 more...

Thats basically taking money from have's and giving it to have-nots...thats redistribution of wealth. I agree that there should be some entitlements but nowhere near the amount they are at right now...im perfectly fine with social security for those people who payed into it, but we have people immigrating in retiring age who didn't pay a dime in taxes their whole life to this country and they earn entitlements like social security...thats socialism. Also socialized healthcare.

Buddy, who are you kidding? Stop lying to yourself.

2) Europe is giant failure...out of about 50 countries, less then 15 have AAA credit ratings, a bunch have already bankrupt (greece, spain...etc...) and others are on the verge of collapse. In europe, the employee is the boss, not the employer (which doesn't make sense), and your healthcare system absolutely sucks.

-Education: Yes, american education needs improvement.
-Growth: Psht...right now you may be beating us, but thats because we are under socialist control, if we get an american back in the whitehouse, that will change. And secondly, you can't be seriously surprised that the EU is beating the U.S....its 27 countries (EU) against 1 country...you should be embarrased if we are half of what you are LOL
-Healthcare: Once again, who are you kidding buddy, do some research, healthcare is a lot of times un affordable in the U.S perhaps, but it is the best in the world. Best doctors and best technology here in the United States...10x better then European sorry ass healthcare with technology 10 years behind the U.S.
-Public Debt: I agree...a democrat-controlled government...we get a downgrade, the same socialists controlling you except not as smart. As I said, our problems right now are the result of leaders like European ones...as I said before, once we get an american back in office....this will change

3) Stop putting words into my mouth, I never said europe was a larger market in comparison to anything...i said it was a large market in general

4) I agree

1) As I said before, entitlement spending in the US is very high. However, it's still relatively small scale compared to Europe and socialism is far more than just redistribution of wealth. Actually, that's the bad part of it.

Contrary to what many Americans think, modern socialism does NOT believe in equality of outcome: a genius should earn a lot more than a lazy dumbass. However, the real goal is equality of opportunity: if I'm born in a poor family in a crime ridden suburb, I should enjoy the same healthcare and education my rich counterpart in a leafy suburb gets. That requires government funded schools and hospitals (and not the underfunded failing substitutes that American public schools in poor areas are). Second, there is the notion that while not everyone should be rich, everyone should at least be able to survive without needing to wonder where he'll get his next meal from.

America, despite massive welfare spending, fails at both. Lack of government money is part of the problem, but poor spending choices are even worse. But who on earth expects quality education when some morons can't even accept that science is being thought rather than religion (face it, creationism is pure religion without scientific basis).

2) Europe geographically consists out of 50 countries, but over half of them are ex-communist (Russia and Eastern Europe) or ex-Republican states (Spain, Portugal, Greece). The only nations in Europe that are actually 'socialist' are the Northwest Europe and Italy. And guess what? Save for Italy, all of the 'socialist' states are performing very well. Think Germany, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg,...

- Education: and where will that improvement come from without European levels of government funding? Private schools only help the rich and I don't want to live in a country where only the rich can get a proper higher education...

- You can't compare the US with the 27 EU states. Either you compare them on a state by state basis (for example, California to Germany or New Jersey to Belgium) or you compare the EU to the US. And actually, that is a fair comparison: the US are geographically larger and the US population isn't that much smaller than the EU's.

- What facts do you use to claim America's healthcare is better? Mortality rates are higher, costs are higher and the amount of people without basic medical treatment is higher. Better? America offers the best healthcare to a select few, mediocre healthcare to the middle classes and no/rubbish healthcare to the poor. Europe offers top tier healthcare to the rich and damn-close-to-top-tier to everyone else. And best of all, having cancer never bankrupted anyone in Europe.

- No it won't. Bush and Reagan added most to the debt out of all presidents. They spent nearly as much as Obama AND cut revenues on top of that. You can't have it all... Besides, Obama became president during a crisis and an economic crisis can only be overcome by massive investment and spending. In a perfect world, consumers do that. However, American consumers already overstretched themselves. So who else than the government should get things back on track?

Oh, btw: what exactly is an 'American'? Is that a white, Christian, heterosexual male that vehemently opposes the Democratic party and its ideals? Because that's what many Republicans seem to believe... And quite frankly, if that's an American, I'd be ashamed if I were an American. And if not, what basis do you have for claiming Obama is not an American?

 

[MysticMiner]

If you're going to talk about Europe, it's important to be specific what parts you're talking about.

Western Europe, Northern Europe, Eastern Europe, they're all very different places, even thought they're all in Europe. Not sure if I should include Southern Europe too, it's not quite as distinct, you can put the countries in it in either Western or Eastern with less worry than say Northern Europe.

Really, it's kind of hard to blame Eastern Europe for suffering from ethnic civil war, and the results of the occupation by the totalitarian empire of the Soviet Union. No, they weren't communists, they just pretended to be.

 

[dogman_1234]

Gamer, the Universal healthcare act was suppose to give those health insurance for those who cannot get it due to preexisting conditions,( I have family like this.) There was to be a public option, but Obama was not given it due to congress screwing around and not putting it in there. Blame Obama for this, but remember who formed the laws of the Act...congress. He had to approve if for fear of backfire from liberals and conservatives.

I like Romney's plan better, but no one else likes it.

What it should of done was give a break to those who cannot afford it. Let us say you have cancer. You must pay 300 dollars a month in cost to keep up with the company,( this does not include medical visits.) what the plan should of done was have the govt. take 100 dollars off for you to make it less of a burden. Note, is it only for those who have conditions and who cannot afford it by determined by the IRS.

 

[MysticMiner]

I like Romney's plan better, but no one else likes it.

Not even Romney.

I was going to state that as a question, but I couldn't.

 

[blackhawk1928]

1) As I said before, entitlement spending in the US is very high. However, it's still relatively small scale compared to Europe and socialism is far more than just redistribution of wealth. Actually, that's the bad part of it.

Contrary to what many Americans think, modern socialism does NOT believe in equality of outcome: a genius should earn a lot more than a lazy dumbass. However, the real goal is equality of opportunity: if I'm born in a poor family in a crime ridden suburb, I should enjoy the same healthcare and education my rich counterpart in a leafy suburb gets. That requires government funded schools and hospitals (and not the underfunded failing substitutes that American public schools in poor areas are). Second, there is the notion that while not everyone should be rich, everyone should at least be able to survive without needing to wonder where he'll get his next meal from.

America, despite massive welfare spending, fails at both. Lack of government money is part of the problem, but poor spending choices are even worse. But who on earth expects quality education when some morons can't even accept that science is being thought rather than religion (face it, creationism is pure religion without scientific basis).

2) Europe geographically consists out of 50 countries, but over half of them are ex-communist (Russia and Eastern Europe) or ex-Republican states (Spain, Portugal, Greece). The only nations in Europe that are actually 'socialist' are the Northwest Europe and Italy. And guess what? Save for Italy, all of the 'socialist' states are performing very well. Think Germany, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg,...

- Education: and where will that improvement come from without European levels of government funding? Private schools only help the rich and I don't want to live in a country where only the rich can get a proper higher education...

- You can't compare the US with the 27 EU states. Either you compare them on a state by state basis (for example, California to Germany or New Jersey to Belgium) or you compare the EU to the US. And actually, that is a fair comparison: the US are geographically larger and the US population isn't that much smaller than the EU's.

- What facts do you use to claim America's healthcare is better? Mortality rates are higher, costs are higher and the amount of people without basic medical treatment is higher. Better? America offers the best healthcare to a select few, mediocre healthcare to the middle classes and no/rubbish healthcare to the poor. Europe offers top tier healthcare to the rich and damn-close-to-top-tier to everyone else. And best of all, having cancer never bankrupted anyone in Europe.

- No it won't. Bush and Reagan added most to the debt out of all presidents. They spent nearly as much as Obama AND cut revenues on top of that. You can't have it all... Besides, Obama became president during a crisis and an economic crisis can only be overcome by massive investment and spending. In a perfect world, consumers do that. However, American consumers already overstretched themselves. So who else than the government should get things back on track?

Oh, btw: what exactly is an 'American'? Is that a white, Christian, heterosexual male that vehemently opposes the Democratic party and its ideals? Because that's what many Republicans seem to believe... And quite frankly, if that's an American, I'd be ashamed if I were an American. And if not, what basis do you have for claiming Obama is not an American?

1) And as I said before, both Europe and the U.S are socialistic. Technically socialism's definition is "the harder you work the more you earn", but in reality it doesn't work that way...in the soviet union, under socialist regime, everybody was equal and poor.

if I'm born in a poor family in a crime ridden suburb, I should enjoy the same healthcare and education my rich counterpart in a leafy suburb gets.

Rich people haven money that they use to pay for extra research, hire extra doctors and get new technologies. You are not entitled to it if you cannot afford it. By your logic, everytime a new technology is created, everybody has to have it...this would completely stop all incentives for any advancements. Also about education, if there is a good public school system, but a rich person doesn't like it, are you saying he doesn't have the freedom to send his kid to a better private school without paying for you going to there also? Please explain yourself.

2) WRONG! The U.S.S.R was not communist...it was socialist. Even the name says it Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics!

-Yes I can compare the U.S with the 27 EU states....comparing the U.S to the EU is comparing 1 country against 27 countries...the EU isn't a single country buddy. THe United States is an actual country with a federal government and one leader, and the United States alone competes easily against 27 countries. Secondly, the population of the EU is 200million more then the U.S...thats a lot of people.

- What facts do you use to claim America's healthcare is better? Mortality rates are higher, costs are higher and the amount of people without basic medical treatment is higher. Better? America offers the best healthcare to a select few, mediocre healthcare to the middle classes and no/rubbish healthcare to the poor. Europe offers top tier healthcare to the rich and damn-close-to-top-tier to everyone else. And best of all, having cancer never bankrupted anyone in Europe.

Are you even reading what I said...

I clearly said in plain english language, that for those who can afford it, healthcare is the best quality in the United States in terms of treatment, doctors and technology. I realize overall healthcare isn't as good since people don't have it, but the actual quality is the best. The best doctors and tech in the U.S is much better then the best doctors and tech in europe.

- No it won't. Bush and Reagan added most to the debt out of all presidents. They spent nearly as much as Obama AND cut revenues on top of that. You can't have it all... Besides, Obama became president during a crisis and an economic crisis can only be overcome by massive investment and spending. In a perfect world, consumers do that. However, American consumers already overstretched themselves. So who else than the government should get things back on track?

The democrats caused the entire recession, now are trying to get us out of it and are only making it worse. Secondly, Obama's rate of spending highest of any other president in U.S history, inflation accounted for.

Oh, btw: what exactly is an 'American'? Is that a white, Christian, heterosexual male that vehemently opposes the Democratic party and its ideals? Because that's what many Republicans seem to believe... And quite frankly, if that's an American, I'd be ashamed if I were an American. And if not, what basis do you have for claiming Obama is not an American?[/quotemsg]

He's anti-american, because he destroying the country.

 

[Gulli]

Contrary to what many Americans think, modern socialism does NOT believe in equality of outcome: a genius should earn a lot more than a lazy dumbass. However, the real goal is equality of opportunity: if I'm born in a poor family in a crime ridden suburb, I should enjoy the same healthcare and education my rich counterpart in a leafy suburb gets. That requires government funded schools and hospitals (and not the underfunded failing substitutes that American public schools in poor areas are). Second, there is the notion that while not everyone should be rich, everyone should at least be able to survive without needing to wonder where he'll get his next meal from.

Exactly. I've got nothing to add to this!

 

[Gulli]

Rich people haven money that they use to pay for extra research, hire extra doctors and get new technologies. You are not entitled to it if you cannot afford it.

Say, are you related to Marie Antoinette?

 

[MysticMiner]

Dog, that plan has been sitting in Joe Biden's desk drawer since 1993.

Did Orrin Hatch send him a draft?

Also, you can get insurance coverage if you have a pre-existing condition. You are just going to have to pay alot more for it, understandably. Why do you think NASCAR drivers have to pay through the nose? The pre-existing condition of driving a race car.

Or because they're private individuals, and don't get group health insurance. And because the top stars have HUGE incomes. The season isn't even complete, and the top ten drivers already have over 30 million in winnings. But they aren't employees, they're contractors. This may be an acceptable relationship or not.

I dunno, but Jack Rousch flew Trevor Bayne to the Mayo Clinic this year, so I don't think it's a problem. Admittedly, Bayne did win the Daytona 500, so he could afford the care on his own.

However, being a race-car driver is not a pre-existing condition, it's voluntary choice. I'm pretty sure it's not covered by the current regulations.

You can't buy fire insurance if your house is already on fire.

Fire insurance is one thing, paying for a fire to be put out is another. At least the fire department doesn't force you to haggle with them on the step any more.

But like I said, I don't approve of people choosing not to pay. Too much danger from a neighbor's fires. You benefit even if you don't have a fire on your property.

What is needed is catastrophic coverage so your family is not bankrupted by the cost of care, at a minimum. They could have achieved this, minus the 4,000+ pages and a complete overhaul in my opinion.

You should see how long the insurance terms Congress just has for itself. Calvin Coolidge may have been a terse speaker, but we don't have that in written laws.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Okay, I hate to burst your bubble, but...

Let's take a look at the best performing western economies. Sweden, Germany, parts of Canada, the Netherlands, Finland,... are all countries that currently outperform the US on every single indicator (economic growth, public debt, education, poverty,...).

What do all of them have in common? They are what you call 'socialist'. They have higher taxes (Sweden has the highest tax rate in the world) and public spending than the US, full social security and free education.

Taxes do not chase away corporations. That is, if business gets something in return. A public service that is fast and efficient. A healthy workforce. A well educated population. Well maintained infrastructure. Oh, and it also helps if taxes are clear and devoid of complicated deductions and loopholes.

The argument behind lowering taxes usually is that it reduces the cost of doing business to the point of it being on par with that in emerging economies. Sorry folks, but that's an illusion, even at zero taxation. Businesses stay in the West because here, they are certain they can find well educated employees, get their goods delivered in time using excellent infrastructure and can do business with legal certainty. In short, because the west is advanced.

Quality education for all, top tier universities, transport and infrastructure. Those are things businesses need and they are things that have to be funded with public money.

Stop thinking you can outperform China, India or Vietnam through cost cutting. Instead, we have to stay ahead through excellence, something Scandinavia realised long ago and is now picking the fruits of.

Nice analysis, but you forgot 1 little thing
Whats their toal population?
http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=238579
http://www.stat.fi/til/vaerak/2010/vaerak_2010_2011-03-18_tie_001_en.html

http://www.indexmundi.com/netherlands/demographics_profile.html
http://www.indexmundi.com/germany/demographics_profile.html


Doing some rounding in their favor, lets guess 115 million, or about 3x as many illegals we are currently supporting here, so, take away those 30 odd million, and the picture looks a tad different.
If any of those countries tried supporting 30 some million people with their freebies, they simply wouldnt have them

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Oh yea, lets not forget those guys whove whooped butt or saved all those countries, hate to say this, but the junior varsity ROTC is tougher than some of those countries military

 

[MysticMiner]

Doing some rounding in their favor, lets guess 115 million, or about 3x as many illegals we are currently supporting here, so, take away those 30 odd million, and the picture looks a tad different.
If any of those countries tried supporting 30 some million people with their freebies, they simply wouldnt have them

Uh...what argument are you trying to make? Please show your work.