The next U.S. President (for non-US members only)

The T wrote: IVNORD wrote: LinusW wrote: IVNORD wrote: debrewguy wrote:   (funny how the Scandies higher tax rates are never brought up when discussing countries with the highest standard of living AND competitiveness. Funny you mention it... A couple of years ago I traveled thru Scandinavia and saw the highly praised highest standard of living AND competitiveness. We rented apartments (as opposed to staying in hotels) living in real conditions (as opposed to tourist arrangements) and mingling with the locals. I would say the owners of the apartments could be considered middle class by their standards, but their standard of living is more of our (and your)working class. Of course, by averaging the US poor and rich you get a lower reading than Scandinavia where the population is more level. Whether it's better or not is debatable. On one hand it would be nice to have all people living equally well; on the other, why would you work your ass off if you have no incentive to do so. Our hosts in Iceland were thoroughly entertained by the fact that my wife managed to get a 3-week vacation (she has 4 weeks a year but  can leave for 2 contiguous weeks at best, usually 1) while they have 6 weeks by law. And it's only in the summer; 2 more in the winter. And of course, they were in total disbelief when I said I had to get up at 5 am to go to work as even supermarkets in Iceland open up at 10 am. So you work less you get less. I would consider myself to be a typical struggling middle class guy, but to them I would be rich. So much for their highest standard of living. As for their highest competitiveness I think you're mistaken too. Strange that I've never noted anything remotely like it before. But then I live in Sweden, where supermarkets open at 7 or 8 I didn't mean it in any way derogatory. I just responded to a statement which was similar in nature to the one before it. If you take statistics out of context, you can prove the "un-provable." When you have one guy at a relative level of 50, the next one at 49, the next one at 51, and so it goes for the next 997 guys, it's hard to miss the average mark of 50. If you have 30 guys at the 5 level, 100 guys at 8, 200 at 70, and 1 fellow at 100, chances are the average would not be that great.   Your standard of living is achieved thru high taxation and redistribution of wealth. Just look at your high prices. It appears you get many things for free, from health care to education, but you really pay for it with taxes. That's why you have less pocket money left than we do. This system of equalization must rely on on integrity and social responsibility of its citizens as there is very little incentive to work hard. If you disagree with me, present your argument, not just a superficial phrase.   Supermarkets in Stockholm really open at 7 (we have some open 24 hours). We were pleasantly surprised to see rush hour crowds in the subway at 7 in the morning wnen we arrived there by train from Oslo. In Oslo we could not find any place open for breakfast around 7:30 on a business day. When we mentioned it to a Swedish couple, the wife who often traveled to Norway said that the Swedes work hard. She kept repeatin it until the husband said to her, "don't tell THEM" meaning we knew what hard work is.   What I think makes a big difference is that people in Europe are not raised to believe that having money = being happy, therefore they can afford to live with less pocket money if they will have enough time to actually LIVE (family life, vacation time, etc) and health and education provided by the state. So there's where the difference lies: many americans will never understand how somebody can prefer to have more time off and health and education instead of a pocket full of money to buy, buy, buy. For europeans (I talk espaically about Germany but I'm sure it's like that in Scandinavia) money is NOT the measure for happiness, as is in the US. In europe people perefer time to go learn something, get some culture, art, a luxury that only the rich people can have in the US, where the "high standard of living of the middle class" only gives them at best 3 weeks off and a few hours every week, and where they can be fired for whatever reason which causes them to have to submit to their employer's all needs.   I'd trade my "pocket full of money" with some QUALITY TIME every day...   And of course, I can't say which is better... It can be said that the amount of money you can spend is the measure of happiness, and an argument can be made in favor of that... As well as the opposite... that's probably why you don't see millions of europeans coming to live in the US, and you don't see millions of americans going to live in Europe. Both know what they want, and they stay where they ahve what they want.   Poor third-world country people have to surrender their own values and come in millions to the US or Europe because they can't afford the luxury of being able to stay and live within their own value system...

You're probably right, having money doesn't play such an important role in Europe. BUt it's not what we're discussing here. Neither are we arguing about our lifestyle preferences. I've just countered a mendacious claim

Maybe you're right as to the Immigration direction T; but the rich tend to jet to Paris, London, Rome when they jet to impress. Europeens generally do the same. L.A. is just too passe, ya se ...
Canadians on the other hand, used to  drive down to Bangor Maine for shopping trips to spend our dollars. But now that we've become oil magnates, we spend our petro-dollars in Orono, Maine
Then we spend our Canadian Tire money in Moncton.

This system of equalization must rely on on integrity and social responsibility of its citizens as there is very little incentive to work hard.

Absolutely. But I think one have to start somewhere and then gradually TRY to build up these elements. Politics for me is built on faith in humanity, and if you lack it, it doesn't matter where you stand within the political spectrum. All is lost anyway.

IVNORD wrote: debrewguy wrote:   (funny how the Scandies higher tax rates are never brought up when discussing countries with the highest standard of living AND competitiveness. Funny you mention it... A couple of years ago I traveled thru Scandinavia and saw the highly praised highest standard of living AND competitiveness. We rented apartments (as opposed to staying in hotels) living in real conditions (as opposed to tourist arrangements) and mingling with the locals. I would say the owners of the apartments could be considered middle class by their standards, but their standard of living is more of our (and your)working class. Of course, by averaging the US poor and rich you get a lower reading than Scandinavia where the population is more level. Whether it's better or not is debatable. On one hand it would be nice to have all people living equally well; on the other, why would you work your ass off if you have no incentive to do so. Our hosts in Iceland were thoroughly entertained by the fact that my wife managed to get a 3-week vacation (she has 4 weeks a year but  can leave for 2 contiguous weeks at best, usually 1) while they have 6 weeks by law. And it's only in the summer; 2 more in the winter. And of course, they were in total disbelief when I said I had to get up at 5 am to go to work as even supermarkets in Iceland open up at 10 am. So you work less you get less. I would consider myself to be a typical struggling middle class guy, but to them I would be rich. So much for their highest standard of living. As for their highest competitiveness I think you're mistaken too.

Strange that I've never noted anything remotely like it before. But then I live in Sweden, where supermarkets open at 7 or 8

As a meddling canuck , my question to those who defend Health Insurance instead of basic universal health care - why is it better to pay $600 a month in health premiums (my wife's cousine's family coverage, not including what her husband pays for his health "benefits"), than to pay, say $200/month extra on your taxes. Oh wait, all taxes are bad. For profit more economical , not for profit more uncontrollable. Me go back to cave now. Me know that if me break my arm hunting mousse, that no worry about pocketbook when going to emergency room.
Oh, and isn't the most recent figure estimate of the number of citizens in the world' wealthiest and most advanced country that have no access to basic health care comes close to 40 - 50 million people.
This may sound too christian for some of the U.S. evangelicals, but I remember something about who's responsible for their brother. Hey, we're either in this thing together or it ain't gonna work. The rich can & do look after themselves. The rest, and that should include most of the middle class should understand the advantage of sharing the cost & risk among a wide base.
Of course, we could just search out and find what the per capita costs are of a public versus private system.
And we would need to compare not only the U.S. and Canadian systems, but also the French, British, German, Scandinavian, and some Asian national systems. (funny how the Scandies higher tax rates are never brought up when discussing countries with the highest standard of living AND competitiveness. I guess it comes down to what you do with your taxes. In America, you build bridges to nowhere in the middle of Alaska, ensure that Homeland security funds are spread equitably across the nation, taking into account the number of voters, I mean security risks that are the same whether it's the Port of New York, or the Des Moines airport.

P.S. Major P.S. this post does not in any way make any claim as to any national health system having attained perfection. My point is the access vs the assumed cost.


Edited by debrewguy - April 27 2008 at 18:02

Proletariat wrote: For now the lesser evil is to stick to Reaganomics, because atleast that way America won't fall further in to debt than we already are.

Please tell me you were making a joke there.  The national debt simply evaluated as a percentage of the gross domestic product had been steadily going down since WW II, escalated under Reagan and Bush I, went steadily down again under Clinton I, and then headed steadily back up under Bush II (I found the "steadily" part under B II rather interesting when I looked it up, I was expecting to see "skyrocketing").

We don't need socialized healthcare or huge tax increases.  Socialized health insurance is the answer.  It wouldn't require huge tax increases, but a few powerful folks who are using the current capitalized health insurance scam to make lots of money would be left out in the cold.  And to that I say, so what?

obama and clinton both have horrible economic polocies, they plan to institute more social programs without making the needed adjustments to the taxation system. I support socialized healthcare, but it will never work withou significant taxation increases. The dems progams all need HUGE changes in the taxation system (I'm talkin' new deal level changes). If they were to implement the programs the way they plan they would fail so miserably that they would never be tried again correctly. For now the lesser evil is to stick to Reaganomics, because atleast that way America won't fall further in to debt than we already are.

CCVP wrote: keiser willhelm wrote: Ron paul is the only one i really dont hate. Obama, don tlike almost half of his platform. hillary? 100% of hers. Mcain? hovering about 40 or 50 percent. its somewhat depressing. Paul is someone i support on many isues, mainly on the war ad the economic system and federalized health care.  basically, the lesser of all the evils. too bad hell be a 3rd partier and thats only ever reached a peak % of the mid high twenties. (the socialist from the 20's) so i feel like my vote is wasted.  i would too if i knew that the vote of some people is worth 10 thousand more than mine. Damn the super delegates. I find incredible how people don't care about politics, not only in US, but around the world. Some time ago, during the french elections, the nazi party almost won because everybody decided to go to the beach instead of go voting. Here in Brazil most people go to the voting booth without know in who to vote! That is just shameful . . . . . I miss the long gone days, that i do not lived, when students fought for things other than parties and beverage. Truly shameful.

keiser willhelm wrote: Ron paul is the only one i really dont hate. Obama, don tlike almost half of his platform. hillary? 100% of hers. Mcain? hovering about 40 or 50 percent. its somewhat depressing. Paul is someone i support on many isues, mainly on the war ad the economic system and federalized health care.  basically, the lesser of all the evils. too bad hell be a 3rd partier and thats only ever reached a peak % of the mid high twenties. (the socialist from the 20's) so i feel like my vote is wasted.

i would too if i knew that the vote of some people is worth 10 thousand more than mine. Damn the super delegates. I find incredible how people don't care about politics, not only in US, but around the world. Some time ago, during the french elections, the nazi party almost won because everybody decided to go to the beach instead of go voting. Here in Brazil most people go to the voting booth without know in who to vote! That is just shameful . . . . .

I miss the long gone days, that i do not lived, when students fought for things other than parties and beverage. Truly shameful.