Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why are we destroying America?

Tags:
Last response: in News & Leisure
Share
August 10, 2011 6:12:52 AM

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.

More about : destroying america

August 10, 2011 10:43:28 AM

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

August 10, 2011 12:13:44 PM

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.
Related resources
August 10, 2011 12:25:18 PM

blackhawk1928 said:
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.



August 10, 2011 12:40:43 PM

dogman_1234 said:
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.


August 10, 2011 12:48:28 PM

Silmarunya said:
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.
August 10, 2011 12:59:59 PM

dogman_1234 said:
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.



You can't "fundamentally transform" the country until you collapse/destroy the current system first.
August 10, 2011 1:50:18 PM

blackhawk1928 said:
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...
August 10, 2011 1:50:59 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
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.
August 10, 2011 1:53:41 PM

Silmarunya said:
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...



What do you mean "out perform"? Are you speaking GDP/GNP? Do you have any numbers to back that up? I just want to understand how you are reaching this conclusion.
August 10, 2011 1:56:56 PM

Silmarunya said:
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...
August 10, 2011 1:58:39 PM

Silmarunya said:
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.

August 10, 2011 2:11:11 PM

blackhawk1928 said:
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...



August 10, 2011 2:15:03 PM

gropouce said:
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.
August 10, 2011 2:17:41 PM

^ 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.
August 10, 2011 3:26:28 PM

Silmarunya said:
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
August 10, 2011 4:54:26 PM

blackhawk1928 said:
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?
August 10, 2011 5:50:34 PM

^^ you are operating on some bad information.

We have Medicare for the elderly, SCHIP for poor children, and Medicaid for poor adults. To say "the poor" get NO healthcare in the US is a myth used to create an emotional response in people so the will readily agree to hand over their freedom.

The purpose of Obamacare is to destroy the private health insurance industry so the only option available to people will be single payer or the government option. It is already happening in several states where insurance providers are just giving up; which is the goal, by design.
August 10, 2011 6:07:57 PM

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.



August 10, 2011 6:13:06 PM

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.
August 10, 2011 6:31:35 PM

dogman_1234 said:

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.

August 10, 2011 6:43:36 PM

Silmarunya said:
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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

- 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.

Quote:

- 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.

Quote:

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.
August 10, 2011 6:45:29 PM

Silmarunya said:
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!
August 10, 2011 6:47:59 PM

dogman_1234 said:
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.



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

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.

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

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.
August 10, 2011 6:48:19 PM

blackhawk1928 said:
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?
August 10, 2011 7:08:35 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Dog, that plan has been sitting in Joe Biden's desk drawer since 1993.


Did Orrin Hatch send him a draft?

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:

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.
August 10, 2011 7:19:14 PM

Silmarunya said:
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-...

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


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
August 10, 2011 7:23:05 PM

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
August 10, 2011 7:42:41 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:

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.



August 10, 2011 8:01:12 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
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-...

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


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


America is lucky to have such high immigration. European countries don't have it and as a result suffer from rapid ageing and a shrinking workforce. Germany's population will shrink by as much as 25% by 2070, which is not good...
August 10, 2011 8:19:02 PM

blackhawk1928 said:
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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

- 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.

Quote:

- 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.

Quote:

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?
Quote:



He's anti-american, because he destroying the country.[/quotemsg]


Clearly, you don't understand socialism very well.

The ideas behind socialism (a term that usually refers to the social-democratic ideology followed by most European parties, not communism - many Americans don't understand the distinction) is not taking away freedoms or anything like that.

Socialism is not against capitalism. It does not believe a rich person should be made poor in order to give hand outs to the poor and lazy. It simply starts from three initial premises:

- No person should have to be poor because of misfortune (disease, old age, ill health) and everyone should have access to a basic safety net that keeps everyone over the poverty limit, even if only barely so. This requires a limited degree of redistribution of wealth, but nothing like what Tea Partiers and other right wing fundamentalists seem to believe is required.
- While there should not be equality of outcome, there should be equality of opportunity. Every person is born equal and should this start life equal. This requires high quality free education and healthcare for all and not the American system in which the quality of your education is not determined by your own talent, but by the wealth of your parents.

Please, read about the history of socialism from Rousseau and Owen through Marx and Engels to Bakoenin and eventually Bernstein and modern socialism.

The US competes against 27 countries, none of which much larger than a US state. Europe is only as large as the US and western Europe is actually a lot smaller (250 million people or so from the top of my head).

The best American hospitals better than the best European hospitals? Perhaps so, but that doesn't change the US' low life expectancy, expensive health care and it ranking at the very bottom in comparisons with other western nations.

Believe what you will about Democrats destroying the country, but statistics clearly show that economic performance was highest under Democratic presidencies. Oh, and I don't even dare imagining what would have happened if the Republicans had been in power now. All countries that tried cutting deficits and debts during the recession still aren't out of it, those that kept spending are now growing steadily and reducing their debts painlessly (think Germany).

Rule one of basic economics: don't cut spending during a recession. When households and businesses have to stop spending, massive government spending is the only thing that keeps the economy going till the private sector picks up again. Obama's only fault was that he spent too little too late and on the wrong things.
August 10, 2011 8:19:03 PM

So, since europes countries are shrinking allowing for less costs and needs, no one sending billions of dollars out of country, not being turned over, like in the US
No weight of free schooling, elementary or high or college, health care as well, since many go to emergency, where they cant be refused, those costs with those numbers add up
Im saying the open market has served us well until certain tipping points were realised, where socialist ideals were playing 2nd rate
August 10, 2011 8:24:38 PM

Id also remind, it wasnt others lifting themselves up as much as the US falling

PS In an open market, you have rises and declines, where the US is obviously in one, but this can be fixed
Its appearing Greece and others, using a more socialist approach appears to be collapsing
August 10, 2011 8:35:17 PM

Actually, the shrinking is a negative, not a positive. It reduces incomes and activity, not costs. Causation is a tough thing to trace, some of it can come from WW2, others from WW1, and even older. Ireland is STILL recovering from the Potato Blight.

Why did I type 2 twice? Sigh.

Also, the costs of education are far out-weighed by the benefits. There's a reason why it's considered an obligation of the government.
August 10, 2011 9:06:07 PM

Not if those illegals never become part of the system, and continue to send billions out of country
If they dont pay taxes, its worse yet
They use the system, the feds dont allow for making them go back, or become legal, as the states try, and are told to back off and sued, which costs more monies

I understand the benefits of immigration, but the influx has yet to go black, and is putting a severe weight upon the system, weakened already.
Then, we also have the military, which can be argued for, just like Obama argues for stimulis, if it wasnt there, what could have happened

These things make America unique, and when things get tight, the ones whos paid their entire lives are cut shorter and shorter, realising that illegals pay less, and yes, they also get less, but with little to go around, it brings forth a stronger consideration of impacts
August 10, 2011 9:15:21 PM

Silmarunya said:


He's anti-american, because he destroying the country.
[/quote]


Clearly, you don't understand socialism very well.

The ideas behind socialism (a term that usually refers to the social-democratic ideology followed by most European parties, not communism - many Americans don't understand the distinction) is not taking away freedoms or anything like that.

Socialism is not against capitalism. It does not believe a rich person should be made poor in order to give hand outs to the poor and lazy. It simply starts from three initial premises:

- No person should have to be poor because of misfortune (disease, old age, ill health) and everyone should have access to a basic safety net that keeps everyone over the poverty limit, even if only barely so. This requires a limited degree of redistribution of wealth, but nothing like what Tea Partiers and other right wing fundamentalists seem to believe is required.
- While there should not be equality of outcome, there should be equality of opportunity. Every person is born equal and should this start life equal. This requires high quality free education and healthcare for all and not the American system in which the quality of your education is not determined by your own talent, but by the wealth of your parents.

Please, read about the history of socialism from Rousseau and Owen through Marx and Engels to Bakoenin and eventually Bernstein and modern socialism.

The US competes against 27 countries, none of which much larger than a US state. Europe is only as large as the US and western Europe is actually a lot smaller (250 million people or so from the top of my head).

The best American hospitals better than the best European hospitals? Perhaps so, but that doesn't change the US' low life expectancy, expensive health care and it ranking at the very bottom in comparisons with other western nations.

Believe what you will about Democrats destroying the country, but statistics clearly show that economic performance was highest under Democratic presidencies. Oh, and I don't even dare imagining what would have happened if the Republicans had been in power now. All countries that tried cutting deficits and debts during the recession still aren't out of it, those that kept spending are now growing steadily and reducing their debts painlessly (think Germany).

Rule one of basic economics: don't cut spending during a recession. When households and businesses have to stop spending, massive government spending is the only thing that keeps the economy going till the private sector picks up again. Obama's only fault was that he spent too little too late and on the wrong things.[/quotemsg]

You think you know what socialism is, because you read from the dictionary...I'm talking about real-life...aka the USSR...please, don't act like you know a damn thing about socialism and what costs, eventually it evolves into a highly corrupt system no matter what, history proves it.

Quote:

The US competes against 27 countries, none of which much larger than a US state. Europe is only as large as the US and western Europe is actually a lot smaller (250 million people or so from the top of my head).


Once again facts...facts...facts...the EU consists of 500million people approximately. I'm not talking about western or eastern europe...I'm talking about the European Union.

Quote:

The best American hospitals better than the best European hospitals? Perhaps so, but that doesn't change the US' low life expectancy, expensive health care and it ranking at the very bottom in comparisons with other western nations.


That has very little to do with healthcare...too many ppl in America eat fast food and all kinds of junk good, plus they don't exercise.

Quote:

Believe what you will about Democrats destroying the country, but statistics clearly show that economic performance was highest under Democratic presidencies. Oh, and I don't even dare imagining what would have happened if the Republicans had been in power now. All countries that tried cutting deficits and debts during the recession still aren't out of it, those that kept spending are now growing steadily and reducing their debts painlessly (think Germany).

Rule one of basic economics: don't cut spending during a recession. When households and businesses have to stop spending, massive government spending is the only thing that keeps the economy going till the private sector picks up again. Obama's only fault was that he spent too little too late and on the wrong things


Statistics show that economy does better under democratic presidencies perhaps, but the best economy is when opposite parties control the branches of government...aka democratic president and republican congress or vice versa. If clinton hadn't caused the recession, there wouldn't be a need for all this spending :) 
August 11, 2011 8:28:30 AM

blackhawk1928 said:


You think you know what socialism is, because you read from the dictionary...I'm talking about real-life...aka the USSR...please, don't act like you know a damn thing about socialism and what costs, eventually it evolves into a highly corrupt system no matter what, history proves it.

Quote:

The US competes against 27 countries, none of which much larger than a US state. Europe is only as large as the US and western Europe is actually a lot smaller (250 million people or so from the top of my head).


Once again facts...facts...facts...the EU consists of 500million people approximately. I'm not talking about western or eastern europe...I'm talking about the European Union.

Quote:

The best American hospitals better than the best European hospitals? Perhaps so, but that doesn't change the US' low life expectancy, expensive health care and it ranking at the very bottom in comparisons with other western nations.


That has very little to do with healthcare...too many ppl in America eat fast food and all kinds of junk good, plus they don't exercise.

Statistics show that economy does better under democratic presidencies perhaps, but the best economy is when opposite parties control the branches of government...aka democratic president and republican congress or vice versa. If clinton hadn't caused the recession, there wouldn't be a need for all this spending :) 


I think I actually am quite well placed to say what socialism is. I live in a country that is what you call 'socialist', have parents that frequently visited the Soviet Union and East Germany (for business, if that sounds believable to you) and I had to endure over a year of courses about the history of the main political ideologies (fascism, liberalism, socialism, libertarianism and the other isms that pop up left and right).

Socialism and Communism are not related in any way. The Soviet Union was communist, not socialist (as pointed out by the ruling CCCP: central committee of the COMMUNIST party, the official communist ideology and the word 'Soviet' in its name).

The EU cannot be compared to the US. Its closest peer in the Americas would be NAFTA. But okay, have it your way. Let's compare the entire EU;

- Northern EU: best performing part of the western world.
- Western EU: similar to northern.
- Eastern EU: despite years of communism, most eastern EU countries are growing very fast and have a modern and open economy (chances are significant you're even using an ex-communist anti virus program like AVG, Avast or ESET).
- Southern EU: Italy is doing fine while Spain, Portugal and Greece are still recovering from years of Republican government. Don't blame them for that.

A healthy lifestyle has an awful lot to do with quality healthcare. It's called preventive medicine, but that never broke through in the US. Quite logical of course, as healthcare is a for-profit enterprise in the US, so healthcare providers have no incentive to actually try to prevent you from falling ill. Where are the government funded information and awareness campaigns? The fat tax? Restrictions on the use of unhealthy additives?

Please enlighten me. How did Clinton cause the recession? With his long period of low government spending?
August 11, 2011 12:45:23 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
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


The US doesn't have some 38 million illegals, it's closer to 12 million. And what makes you think there are no illegals in Europe? There are an estimated 200.000 illegals in the Netherlands alone (a country of 16 million people), the UK even has an estimated 1 million of them, as does Italy and presumably Spain as well. With the European population being more aged every immigrant is more of a burden here than in America.
August 11, 2011 4:28:40 PM

Silmarunya said:
I think I actually am quite well placed to say what socialism is. I live in a country that is what you call 'socialist', have parents that frequently visited the Soviet Union and East Germany (for business, if that sounds believable to you) and I had to endure over a year of courses about the history of the main political ideologies (fascism, liberalism, socialism, libertarianism and the other isms that pop up left and right).

Socialism and Communism are not related in any way. The Soviet Union was communist, not socialist (as pointed out by the ruling CCCP: central committee of the COMMUNIST party, the official communist ideology and the word 'Soviet' in its name).

The EU cannot be compared to the US. Its closest peer in the Americas would be NAFTA. But okay, have it your way. Let's compare the entire EU;

- Northern EU: best performing part of the western world.
- Western EU: similar to northern.
- Eastern EU: despite years of communism, most eastern EU countries are growing very fast and have a modern and open economy (chances are significant you're even using an ex-communist anti virus program like AVG, Avast or ESET).
- Southern EU: Italy is doing fine while Spain, Portugal and Greece are still recovering from years of Republican government. Don't blame them for that.

A healthy lifestyle has an awful lot to do with quality healthcare. It's called preventive medicine, but that never broke through in the US. Quite logical of course, as healthcare is a for-profit enterprise in the US, so healthcare providers have no incentive to actually try to prevent you from falling ill. Where are the government funded information and awareness campaigns? The fat tax? Restrictions on the use of unhealthy additives?

Please enlighten me. How did Clinton cause the recession? With his long period of low government spending?


Well, my parents were born and lived in the soviet union, before they immigrated from what hellhole here...and by the way when my parents came here, they didn't use a dime of entitlements, they stood up on their feet by themselves.

Quote:

Socialism and Communism are not related in any way. The Soviet Union was communist, not socialist (as pointed out by the ruling CCCP: central committee of the COMMUNIST party, the official communist ideology and the word 'Soviet' in its name).


Okay good, you realize that they are different, I was getting scared you were thinking they are the same. Technically they are a bit related but not by much. However in real-life they are a lot more similar then they are in the dictionary, you know that.

Also, the Soviet Union was not communist, get your history straight. CCCP is not an English acronym, the translation of CCCP is USSR. C in Russian is S in English. Nowhere is it communism in the acronym.

Moreover, even if I'm wrong, the system they had was a socialist dictatorship...nowhere near communism. I understand your parents were tourists there, but tourism is different from actually being a citizen...

Quote:

The EU cannot be compared to the US


The EU was created specifically to compete with the U.S, because individually, no country in Europe can possibly compete with the United States. Russia can compete with us, but its not in the EU.

Quote:

A healthy lifestyle has an awful lot to do with quality healthcare. It's called preventive medicine, but that never broke through in the US. Quite logical of course, as healthcare is a for-profit enterprise in the US, so healthcare providers have no incentive to actually try to prevent you from falling ill. Where are the government funded information and awareness campaigns? The fat tax? Restrictions on the use of unhealthy additives?


I agree, prevention is better then cure. The private sector is a business, and the entire purpose is for profit, so you can't blame them for not caring or having morals...moreover, instead of destroying the private healthcare system, it would have been far easier to simply regulated it...put some regulations on pricing and appointments as well as use of medicine and you have yourself a solution. A highly regulated private sector is still way more effective and efficient than a government controlled entity.

Quote:

Please enlighten me. How did Clinton cause the recession? With his long period of low government spending?


Forcing private banks to provide loans to unqualified borrowers under rule of the 1977 CRA and then having fannie and freddia buy off these loans thereby creating artificial prices and teaser interest rates which couldn't be payed once they ended, so people walked out on payment and the result was the banks and the people lost money.

Whoever caused the recession, its sure as hell was not bush, if you blame bush for the recession, it clearly shows me you have no clue about history of the last 20 years and how economics as well as politics work in the United States at least. Bush tried stopping the recession in fact. He is responsible for a lot of death and debt from wars, but not the recession.
August 11, 2011 4:41:20 PM

"A healthy lifestyle has an awful lot to do with quality healthcare. It's called preventive medicine, but that never broke through in the US. Quite logical of course, as healthcare is a for-profit enterprise in the US, so healthcare providers have no incentive to actually try to prevent you from falling ill. Where are the government funded information and awareness campaigns? The fat tax? Restrictions on the use of unhealthy additives?"


Not sure what you mean here. I've been getting annual checkups since I was born. Isn't that considered 'preventative care'?
August 11, 2011 4:45:08 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
"A healthy lifestyle has an awful lot to do with quality healthcare. It's called preventive medicine, but that never broke through in the US. Quite logical of course, as healthcare is a for-profit enterprise in the US, so healthcare providers have no incentive to actually try to prevent you from falling ill. Where are the government funded information and awareness campaigns? The fat tax? Restrictions on the use of unhealthy additives?"


Not sure what you mean here. I've been getting annual checkups since I was born. Isn't that considered 'preventative care'?


Kinda, but it's not what Silmarunya was getting at, which was preventative care that didn't bring money into the pockets of insurers, pharmaceutical companies and doctors, things like excercise and a healthy diet.
August 11, 2011 4:51:38 PM

Gulli said:
Kinda, but it's not what Silmarunya was getting at, which was preventative care that didn't bring money into the pockets of insurers, pharmaceutical companies and doctors, things like excercise and a healthy diet.



It would be faily easy to keep the money out of insurers' pockets. Pay the doctor directly yourself.

As far as eating healthy and exercise: My doctor tells me these things whenever I visit him. And I promptly respond with

"when the hell did we get married Doc?"
August 11, 2011 7:39:15 PM

Cant help someone whos living in 1984
August 12, 2011 3:08:26 AM

Gulli said:
Kinda, but it's not what Silmarunya was getting at, which was preventative care that didn't bring money into the pockets of insurers, pharmaceutical companies and doctors, things like excercise and a healthy diet.


How do you plan on legislating excercise and healthy diet?
August 12, 2011 3:20:37 AM

I'd suggest methods of encouraging it, through community designs that facilitate exercise and education programs.

Or just making the information available. There's a reason why fast food fought labeling. People can make better decisions with proper information.

Most proscriptive regulation would be in the commerce rather than the individual conduct. The only time it'd come up in individual conduct is parental responsibilities.

August 12, 2011 3:33:26 AM

It takes a village to unmake a fat kid
August 12, 2011 4:37:36 AM

MysticMiner said:
I'd suggest methods of encouraging it, through community designs that facilitate exercise and education programs.

Or just making the information available. There's a reason why fast food fought labeling. People can make better decisions with proper information.

Most proscriptive regulation would be in the commerce rather than the individual conduct. The only time it'd come up in individual conduct is parental responsibilities.


The community reinvestment act was also designed to *encourage* banks to give loans. It turned out to be a waste of time and money, because banks didn't...so in the end they were forced to do so.
August 12, 2011 4:59:58 AM

Except...those loans defaulted at a far lower rate than the other loans, and the real problem was the excess housing construction based on risky speculation of increasing prices, most of which was way outside the CRA boundaries.

At the low-end, covered by the CRA, everything was fine in comparison.

But you want a few dozen examples of effective government encouragement? Try the Interstate Highway System. Try the TVA. Try the Internet.

And of course, you'll want to look at any number of incentive programs for local industry, which range from car plants to distribution warehouses. Or subsidies for oil production.

Sorry, but your example is incorrect, but even if you were accurate in your description, there's many many many others to counter it.



August 12, 2011 6:54:29 AM

blackhawk1928 said:

Statistics show that economy does better under democratic presidencies perhaps, but the best economy is when opposite parties control the branches of government...aka democratic president and republican congress or vice versa. If clinton hadn't caused the recession, there wouldn't be a need for all this spending :) 


Funny since it was the Republicans that actually caused S&P to downgrade US's credit. Obama implemented the balanced plan which is to cut and raise revenues (increasing taxes). The republican congress went against any increased revenues and went on over a month worth of bickering which shouldn't have happened. S&P approved the balanced plan and it would have avoided the downgrade on the US.

I blame the Republicans for not coming up with one solution that would have entirely avoided the downgrade. After the downgrade happened, The republican party all came out in name calling rage fashion blaming the president when it is their own fault that got the USA in the mess. In fact even S&P blames them. If you do not believe me, I do have sources to back it up.

Go on http://www.standardandpoors.com/ratings/articles/en/us/...
Read their reasons of the downgrade and it says exactly this

'We have changed our assumption on this because the majority
of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise
revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act.'

And there we have it. The republicans caused another recent recession again. To say that the democratic caused the recession is just blatantly stupid. During the Clinton years, we actually had surpluses that actually paid down the national debt but when Bush came into office, Bush managed to actually turn the surpluses into deficit which actually sank us deeper into the national debt.

As the years went on, the national debt had skyrocketed to the point that the people especially the corporations were freaking out and the banks were unable to take on any more loans. That had caused major part of the crash of 2008. Sure, it was partly the democratic fault of fannie and freddy mae mess but it was not entirely their fault. They did contribute to the problem but no party is perfect. Watch the movie "Inside Job" if you want to be educated about how the entire crash of 2008 happened.

In the light of this, I find alot more things to blame about Republicans than Democratic in handling of America. If the Republican ran their way, it's corporate socialism with the tax cuts and tax loopholes which saves corporations alot of money and they use that money to send jobs oversea just to make more profit. At this time of history in America, we are facing 'corporate socialism'. When the corporate has too much wealth and hoards it, recession will occur. But when the corporate spends money on the domestic jobs and pay them well, the money will continue to flow, and in return, more people will find jobs and with more jobs, people will be able to buy more things which translate in more profit for the corporate. USA will also get more money from the income taxes which they can use to invest in education, healthcare, and infrastructure which is the positive force for any business to thrive in.

By this logic, if you give 1 dollar to a rich person, he would just hold it in his bank because he has no use for it which does not exactly simulate the economy. But if you give 1 dollar to a poor person, that person would use the money to buy foods or pay for the debts which will simulate the economy and basically give the money back to the corporate which they can use to invest in other things.

We just need to make business in USA more business friendly and we are not doing that because the education here is failing and so is the infrastructure. Don't even get started on the healthcare because the poor people cant even afford it. I know some people who work has problems with their legs or wrist and cannot take care of their problems because they cannot afford the skyrocketing healthcare costs.

Business will thrive if we have educated and healthy workforce as well as good maintained infrastructure. We just need more middle class to support the rich, not the poor to support the ultra rich. We are all human beings and we all have rights damn it! We need to have good education to develop real job skills, good healthcare to be healthy and work efficiently (A person who has problems with their wrists or any other body parts will not improve efficiency in their job but actually slows it down) and a great infrastructure which I think is self explanatory.

However in a real corporate socialism country which is USA, a businessman knows no country but of profit.
!