U.S. Presidential Election 2008

That post is just soo full of shit!

Have you ever been to Norway? They have high taxes, and perhaps the best quality of life on the planet. The gap between rich and poor is not really noticeable, homeless people tell you they choose to be homeless as it better suits their lifestyle (never liked having that level of responsibility; homes, possessions, etc) and people basically have a cap on how much they can earn, after that the rest is effectively taxed.

I've never heard a norwegian complain about life, I've never heard them say "I want more", and I've never heard them complain about having to carry the lazy people. People pursue careers that interest them, not because it's the highest paying but because they love it. You don't have this weird obsession with wealth, as if he who dies with the most toys wins. If you can take holidays, still have a lot of money in the bank, have a few homes, and a happy, healthy family, doing a job you chose to do out of passion and not out of security, then I don't see how that's bad. I don't see how that's one step closer to communism. With such a safety net underneath them, no wonder they're mild-mannered people who you wouldn't associate with flipping out (the love of heavy metal music aside...), or stress / worry. Not to mention holidays - presumably like europe. 5 weeks standard if not more. Most norwegians have a summer home, and so on. That sounds a lot more utopian than the immigrant who takes a chance of the "land of freedom" and gets a cold hard smack in the face as he's stuck driving a cab and repeatedly being called Abdul because nobody would recognize his academic credentials from overseas, while he's trying to keep his family afloat. Or whatever.

It's just another mentality I suppose. I'll try to accept this republican one, but I think it's a very selfish one and I wouldn't ever vote republican (even if I was allowed to). It also makes it easy to blame a victim, with this whole "personal responsibility" idea. Gatzke, I mean you sound like a "temperate rep", as opposed to a fanatical one, and I'm still not convinced, so I'll have to leave it at that.

The goverment and its representatives know far better than you the technical differences between services offered by health companies, surgeons, pharamceutical manufacturers and the like, so in a certain sense you are much stupider (or, if you like, don't habitually do much risk modelling for the liklihood of health problems over your lifetime). You are welcome to choose your coverage level in your current system, but are almost certainly either paying too much or too little, and either is not good. Like it or not, your dogmatic insistence on the freedom to choose means nothing when you have little detailed idea of what health coverage you really need. And if freedom also means 15% or so of your health insurance going needlessly into the pockets of a bloated health service provider for no additional benefit and widespread lack of coverage for the poor then I guess that's just the price you have to pay for freedom eh?

Not sure what you mean by your second paragraph, can you please refashion it into a recognisable question?

If this isn't republican thinking, I don't know what is. Has it not occurred to you that people are not created equal? I can imagine now that the film Forrest Gump was subsidized by the republican party. If he can do it, so can you.

No. There are a lot of intellectually inferior people in the world. There are a lot of people who have behavioural / emotional problems because they came out of abusive families. You see? Republicanism works if you think you are "normal". But the very idea of normal itself is indeed quite absurd, if you think long and hard about it. Anyway, there are a lot of people in the margins of society, who don't even know how to make such choices. PLUS, if you have no financial safety net, you are likely to be living in a bit of fear / worry, then you don't make decisions from your own sense of confidence - if you even have that.

If that's the case ... then it hasn't been much of success now has it? Seems the poor get poorer and the wealthy are getting richer.
The problem is, you assume people WANT to be poor and destitute. Huh? So you think families are raising their children to be bums? You must have a very low view of Americans. Most Americans I know are just trying to get by on what little they earn. They're middle class families that (surprise) don't have the luxury of working for that second car or taking that dream vacation.

As for the poverty stricken, I don't place fault in them for not working hard enough, that's like blaming the well to do for the brats of society.

Will you always have those that stay on the system, sure, but don't assume it's because they're lazy or sponges...Many just use it for what it was intended for. Also, government programs don't give you much, so it's not like living off the system gets you a winfall.

The moral of this thread is there is probably some happy medium between the Objectivist state of nature where its every man for himself and some socialist fantasy where janitors are paid nearly the same as rocket scientists because its not their fault they chose to push a mop.


From my experience being a TA at university, American parents aren't raising their children to be anything except 20 year old children whose mommies still call about their homework...

And this highlights the difference in our thinking. Youa ask why the Government doesn't do more for people and I ask why people don't do more for themselves. Somehow you think that your question is more realistic than mine. It's not.

The treatment of people is more equal in America than most other lands. Look at the access to higher education here in Germany. If you don't qualify for Gymnasium at 9 years old, you're don't get access to a university. You're relegated to a lower class for your entire life, the drive to succeed is stopped right there.

America promises opportunity and nothing more. It's what people choose to do with that opportunity that defines how far they will go. Choices. personal responsibility.

So should children should be denied good education and health care because of their parents lack of personal responsibility?

You're absolutely right. Well said.


On the contrary, I have an extraordinarily high view of Americans, which is why it pains me to see them hurt by the government. (Yes, contrary to what some people on this thread think, it is just as easy to get hurt or burdened by the government as it is by private institutions.) I believe that people have the capability to take responsibility of their lives and lead them as they so please; they don't need the government telling them what to do. For those who do need social welfare programs, the government should step in and help them, which would be much easier to do if it was a smaller portion of the population. Creating these oversized blanket programs can hurt more than they can help.

The US needs less government involvement so that those who really do need care actually receive the benefits from a smaller and better maintained organization.

Sorry, I'm not a Republican, but a nice rty anyway.

I don't know where to start with this one. Let me just ask which part of society are in? and remember you may not be intelligent enough to know you're "intellectually inferior". At least my thinking allows for th possibility that everyone can improve their lot in life.

arrogance. (shakes head and goes home)

No.

There is difinetly a fundamental difference in our thinking.
Because for some reason you seem to think saying 'people do more for themselves' translates into realistic situations having an easy way out. I know for certain, that is not always true. So chalk it up to differences of opinion based on what we have personally observed and experienced.

The treatment of people in America just barely rises above the treatment of people in other Nations.

Germany is no gleaming jewel either, I agree. But it's no different than an American child being labelled 'special needs' and being regulated to that Group for their entire life.

Yes, America offers some opportunity ... but not everyone gets a fair shake. Fundamental Differences.

Of course it is, but you don't put some things down to simply bottom line economics. Social institutions should not be run by private groups and you don't put the Gov in charge where bureaucracy is a hindrance and not an asset and it is the wise man that knows the difference.

Fine rhetoric, but let's look at the details.

1. Equality of opportunity does not exclude government health care.

2. You say you don't like taxes but you pay more in your current system to private health care providers than you would to a goverment provider. This may be very noble and pro-freedom, but it isn't very smart. This is especially so since you have any amount of good examples out there in the form of most of the other large, wealthy, western, pro-freedom democracies to choose from. In this case, a little sensible application of socialist principles could enhance the capitalistic efficiency of your economy.

But we don't have to wait in lines for months for minor (or major issues) related to healthcare.

And since when did Americans every do anything smart?

"Sensible socialism" sounds like a great motto for the commies. I bet it would fly great in the US!

BTW, hilarious McCain Veep search video here.

Neither did I in Australia, can't say much for Germany yet. From what I read online, America has its own problems with waiting so I doubt you have anything to brag about. Regarding your second point, it's been a while


Hey, America used to be reasonably pragmatic country, and state-provided health care is clearly better than the current mess you have. You're the only wealthy country in the world without some form of universal health care, in fact, and despite spending the most on healthcare in the world you rank somewhere in the 70s for health outcomes. Mock all you like, but in this instance (and I am far from a socialist but the facts are impossible to ignore here) those dirty non-commies are well ahead of the Americans here.

This was never true and since the recent changes to the system allowing those with a "Meister" qualification automatic access to universities, getting there has become somewhat easier.

Because of her family situation my wife had to leave school (Volksschule) with only the equivalent of a Hauptschulabschluss. By dint of further studying and night school classes she eventually managed to attain the "Hochschulreife" which allowed her access to university, where she went on to get a Diploma in Design. It was never easy, but in contrast to the statement above, it has always been possible. What it does require is a lot of determination and hard work.

Just like in the states. It may take determination and a lot of hard work. There is nothing stopping you from working two jobs and going to night classes if you want change. However, it is up to you to motivate and get it done. I had enough trouble in school without a family or a job, but I know it can be done.

Yes, some people are lucky. They are born with talent, skils, or maybe into a wealthy family. That just gives them a better initial condition on the playing field. They all still have the same opprotunities and potential as others. Maybe we need a handicapper general to make everyone equal, so nobody gets ahead?

As for private health coverage, your company negotiates with providers rather than having it run by the government. I am given choices between providers based on coverage and cost. If a company does not live up to contractual obligations, they eventually lose business. If the government provided plan stinks, what is my recourse? Pay a ton out of pocket to go private provider and possibly get screwed like in Germany? I can't switch countries like I can switch providers.

Sensible socialism. $200,000 should be enough for anyone! Back to 90% tax brackets! Free PBAs for everyone!

Someone who didn't have to work his way through school telling others the virtue of hard work, not an uncommon theme I find As a diabetic there is no way I would have been able to work my way through college if I hadn't been lucky enough to be on my parents health insurance. You can offer health assistance and improve the American system without turning into an ultra socialist system.

Word is, the Edwardses will skip the convention entirely.


Duh. Both parties are for "family values." For all the schlubs except the leaders themselves, of course.

Wow, and it was you who called me inane. Ever heard of something called Sociology? It's the study of why people do not have the same opportunities and potential as others.

How is a black man in the south gonna get hired by "daddy's law firm" after going to Harvard when he doesn't even know who his daddy is? Ooops, wait, daddy didn't pay for Harvard, daddy was incarcerated for 3 years for smoking a joint on a nice summer night in the wrong neighbourhood.

Do you really see the world so naively? I mean, sorry to put it like that but I mean what do you expect? I hate to see what similar people like you that haven't left their own country would be like. Wow. Sorry.

horseshoe7. I guess you believe that some people are oppressed while others believe that they squander their God given ability. The problem with a socialist system is that it usually fails because it doesn't reward risk taking and hard work. I feel for liberals because they probably want to improve the life of others, but in reality libverals end up hurting the poor by making them addicted to welfare.

Another BS post that doesn't even know the meaning of Socialism or Liberalism for that matter.

yet another attempt by eurovol to add to the discussion yet failing to add anything thoughtful. Yawn...

Why? You can't garibaldi. Posting photos of other people in other people's sale ads with ''would you trust this man'' is not keeping on topic! Your explanation to everybody here is awaited.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16860
Eurovol and other lefties can learn a lot from the above post. Enjoy

i talk about the lack of universal healthcare and get called a socialist. that's what i'm talkin' about.

dein
Karl Marx

Hi horseshoe7, no offense intended. I was just making a comment that such programs have a dark side to them, that's all. I wouldn't intentionally offend anyone on the forum... unlike a certain person form TN.

Horseshoe's point stands. To you, savage, socialism = The Dark Side.

I can't disagree cinzia, well put.

MT will disagree with me on this but yanksavage you live in a country with socialists within a coalition governmet and recently ruled by a green socialist coalition. Many of the programmes you so denounce are in operation here but the sky has not fallen on our heads. There is a large problem with unemployment in East Germany but that is due largely to a lack of opportunities there rather than social welfare being preferable to work. Otherwise, the country works well with an excellent infrastructure and one of the most business-oriented economies on the globe. It must be hell for you here. Care to comment?

I live in the US and visit Germany for about three months every year on business. But, to comment, yes Germany has a pro business aspect, lower corporate taxes than the US, but my opinion is that the welfare protection offered to Germans has hurt the German economy. One of my clients can't find enough employees because being unemployed is too great a benefit to some. Furthermore, Germany has had a high unemployment rate. Lastly, I work for a German company in the US, as stated above, and most of my colleagues laft Germany because of high personal taxes. Is that a fair response?

it is a fair response and I' sorry I thought you were here. Germany does have a problem with unemployment but that is largely the result of the poorly planned and executed reuniting of east and west Germany. You could argue that the employer's laibility for tax and insurance payments is too high in Germany making it difficult for struggling firms to be able to afford staff - preferring to work understaffed and there may be good reasons to reform that. But actually the rate of unemployment has been falling in Germany and stands at 7.5% at present - lower than Oregon and Michigan in the states. Now their problems obviously weren't socialism were they?

Learn the difference in the philosophical ideologies (not Repub rhetoric) and then we can discuss your anti-social behavior.

I would make the argument that Michigan has a Democratic Gov and representatitves who have raised taxes and eliminated incentives for business. Socialism at work. Also, when I last lived in Germany 18 year ago (can't believe it's been so long) the economy was very strong. (before the fall of the wall) Why has it taken so long to recover?

...

There is that total BS stuff again.

I'd like to remind you eurovol, that it is you, not me, who provokes the situation. When I challenge your opinion you often make offensive remarks. I'm trying to take the high road. How about discussing issues on an adult level and leave offensive comments out of the forum? I give my word to procede on that basis. Are you with me? PM me if you would like.

Dude, every "socialism" remark you make is repugnant and offensive. Mostly cause you don't even know what the meaning is. You use it as an insult. Look in the mirror before you make more judgments!

eurovol, once again, if I have offende you I'm sorry to have done so. I like this forum and enjoy the banter. I actually look forward to your responses. I do not intend to offend. Sometimes I use humor as a reponse. Once again, no offense intended, juts being lihgt hearted. If you PM me I will go into more personal detail as to why I dislike socialism/ liberalism (whatever) but it's too personal to mention on a forum.

I would appreciate your thoughtful repsonse to my posts. They are always welcome.

lots and lots of reasons. Khol's decision to rush it all through before the economy and population of the East had adjusted to a market economy and the decision to give parity between the Ostmark and Deutschmark are two that stand out. East Germany joined Germany and then all its businesses went bust or moved west. Unemployment and economic collapse on that scale takes a very long time to recover. The North of England suffered less than East Germany in the early 80s and is still not fully recovered. And when you have two or even three generations of a family that are unemployed it an be very difficult to break out of that cycle. Just compare the eastern Länder of Germany, that were before reunification in a better economic state than any other region of the former communist eastern Europe, with countries like the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary that are all now in better economic shape. It wasn't socialism that destroyed East Germany but incompetently managed capitalism.

and eurovol does have a sort of point that you are conflating an awful lot together under the label "socialism" - many elements that are not paticularly socialist at all.

Thank you for your informed respone BTC. I would like to suggest that you review the Irish economy. I lived there as well (been tossed out of many decent countries) In the early 80s they had a very bad economy. They decided to lower corporate and individual taxes. Business pay between 13.5% tax for manufacturing and 17% for services, compared with 35% in the US. As a result the have avery strong economy. It has been referred to as the Irish Tiger. Very impressive. I would far prefer such an economy that the German or US economy. Your thoughts?

YS, if your friend can't find any staff at the pay he is offering, he's offering too little in Germany's market capitalist economy.

Ireland also got theright ammount of US investment and EU subsidies at the right time.
But from what I hear, its been a spivs dream.
The people who have been cut out of the Celtic Tiger are having a hard time of it and even the "winning" upper working to middle classes are in debt up to their eyeballs
in a country where the infrastructure is under huge strain with amongst the heaviest reliance on oil in Europe.

I'll be more specific in the future.

very good point MT. I would add though, that when given a choice to work or collect unemployment benefits, many will choose the benefits. If benefits were less attractive, people would have more incentive to work. Is that a fair response?

People will choose to come off benefits when it is worth it.
If after all the losses they make by working they are only fractionally better off than claiming benefit, they won't start work.

That could mean benefits are too high, that could mean the pay is too low.

But seeing as Hartz IV is €350 a month plus rent I dont think benefits are too high.
The other factor in my mind are work related costs like clothes, travel, food, kindergarten etc etc as well as the tax and social security bite.

@yanksavage

Ireland prospered through being an English speaking country on the edge of Europe. Once it had broken through the priest dominated argriculturalist economy of DeValera they realised that they could attract predominantly US businesses wishing to trade within Europe by dramatically reducing business taxes and thereby undercutting the UK. They had very little to lose by doing that and a lot to gain in a period of rapid economic growth and they have up to now done very well out of that. This was a model for growth that would not have benefitted any other country in Europe in the same way. However, despite this the very causes of Irish success may also be its downfall in the current world economic crisis. Ireland is already looking at a looming recession that it may take a considerable length of time to recover from.

Yes, buth the US investment is a result of tax incentives an other incentives. Isn't this what a government should do? And yes, people ar ein debt, mostly bevcause property is so expensive. But this is due to a monolpoy type attitude of land owners, far from true capitalism. And yea the economy is slower, but still strong compared to the continent. Furthermore, Ireland had to eliminate imprt teriffs and which dertoyed some industry, mostly food and furniture, in order to be allowed in the EU. They recovered from that loss. Also, they now pay more into the EU than they receive. Is this not the intent of EU sponsorship?

Oh yeah, I largely agree with BtC's analysis of what went wrong with East Germany too.
The Saumagen just didn't keep his wife in the dark, he deliberately fucked up the new states and left us in the west with the bill for it to ensure his place in the history books as "The Unity Chancellor".

<kotz>

I guess time will tell. But I stll hold to my guns that money is better spent in the hands of those who earn it.