Mike - Claire Thread

But see, what we see as barbaric in the US you defend.

(Ps, nothing against the US per se, indeed some great American friends)

What you see as barbaric in others you criticise.

BTW, taxes aren't higher in Germany than in say New York/USA, in UK they are lower, we have, at least in Germany, fully comparable to the US health care for everybody, less crime, no inner city slums, no wagon parks for the poor, lots of very rich people, the Aldi bros on the no 3 slot on the forbes 500 worlds richest list, lots of other billionaires and "mere" millionaires etc.

Nothing socialist in Germany, just a, what you in the US would call a democratic as in Clinton party in office.

 

It's great against boredom and provides some inpetus to masage those old grey cells.

 

lol.. well I gotta run and fetch my wife from work so will blast a volley back at y'all upon my return and after a quick trade or two if I dare...

see you later alligator

Neil

 

Isn't it about time everyone got back to the topic of TRADING?

I think Americans are far better traders than Europeans.

 

I am in full support of barbarism as long as it does not affect my rights to life, liberty and pursuit of property (or anyone else's rights to same).

I believe the government's job is to protect our rights to life, liberty and property and that's it. Period. I resent having to pay for anything else other than physical protection, the support of contracts and laws, and due process. Private sector can handle everything else just fine.

There is a LOT of socialism not just in Germany but in Europe overall (the world overall). It's not just a group of guys waving a red flag, it's a mindset and a perspective that influences decisions. It's groupthink, mediocrity, punishing the individual for the good of the many, taking from one and giving to all without rhyme nor reason nor right. It's things like the mandatory 35 hour work week in France, the unions getting in bed with the government, Schroeder bailing out a failing company or industry because it is too stupid to take care of itself, criticism of ideas outside the mainstream. Read Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" for a fuller description. Not to mention that there are still many political parties in Europe with word 'socialist' in them.

Note there is socialism in the United States too unfortunately- our public education system is a relic of socialist thinking. Which is exactly why it sucks.

In terms of New York taxes, that's exactly why I don't live there. New York has its share of socialism too- rent control being the most glaring example. Wherever politicians get too full of themselves or some minority finds a way to exploit the majority or vice versa, socialist policies rear their ugly head. Again, read Road to Serfdom if you haven't already. If you have, read it again

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"how stupid you are. You simply make me laugh. I hate you and your country, believe me. Soon others kamikakes will make you cry and I will laugh again as I did on the 11th of September when the USA expected an attack in Europe, not in the States. Your country is such an egoist, a "shark", that I won't have any pity to crush, if I could."

Did that French guy who went ovewr his limit actually post this??? You have got to be kidding me.

 

What about the 45 million Americans that don't have health care?

What about all those living in slums?

Most of them will never get out of that. And in the long run that is pretty expensive for any society.

That's what I call system failure. In my opinion the state should also be there to, along with your points, take care of those few that cannot take care of themselves.

That is also the best way to reduce crime. If you ain't starving and don't have to worry how you're gonna pay the bills for your wife who has cancer you're at least less likely to commit a crime.

And again, those high crime rates in the US gotta come from somewhere. While these are not the sole causes, I'm pretty sure that they at least contribute.

While I agree that there are some examples where this has been exaggerated in Europe, there should be that basic support that at least means that in rich countries everybody has at least health care and doesn't have to live in a slum, or that as in the US if you're unemployed longer than a certain time you'll never get help again.

That's not saying that you should subsidise people indefinitely, you should force them to take a job and not just allow them to take their social security while others have to work.

Take countries like Switzerland, the Benelux States, or Germany, and you get the best of both worlds.

(Ok, Schroeder had no part bailing out that building company, but that was a 1 time occurrence not likely to be repeated)

Anyway, in Germany, say, you get schooling where everybody is literate, everybody has first rate and immediate access to health care, universities are free, crime is, compared to the US, very low, total lack of slums or run down inner cities, and still very many people that manage to get extremely rich all the way up to the third richest person in the world per Forbes living and paying taxes in Germany, and as taxes are currently comparable to New York but are gonna come down further, not too much to complain about there.

Germany has it's problems, like every other country, but this middle path at least seems to have it's distinct advantages over either extremes of total laisser faire on the one hand or extreme social democracy on the other.

 

Health care thing has already been covered on this very thread from multiple angles.

The millions living in slums are actually more a victim of the welfare state than of lack of opportunity. LBJ's great society was the worst thing to ever happen to minorities because an entitlement mentality is corrosive to mind, body and spirit.

There are essentially zero people going hungry in the US. No city is without its churches or soup kitchens. As far as opportunity, there is more here than anywhere. Anyone- and I do mean ANYONE- can get an education if they want one. Get a GED, work two jobs, save up for a night school class that costs maybe $500 or $1000 and gives you occupational training. There are hundreds- no, thousands of these opportunities in every city.

This is partially why mother Europe's unemployment rates are TRIPLE those in the USA. Unemployment numbers alone tell a different story than the one you are suggesting.

And going back to the people in the slums- anyone with no education, no family life and a drug habit is going to have a poor go of it no matter where they live. Ever been to Amsterdam?

Most welfare spending is a waste of money because for every dollar the government takes in at least fifty cents of it is wasted on bureaucracy. And more often than not the other fifty cents does more harm than good and/or takes away from a more efficient private sector replacement that you will never see because the government never let it come in.

The middle way is the mediocre way. Give people opportunity but don't coddle them. Let them make their own mistakes. Let's say you were 21 and without a job, but you were fairly intelligent and a hard worker. Would you really rather be in Europe than USA, where all the labor laws make life cushy for those who are employed at the expense of those who are not? And furthermore, where entrepreneurs are treated like dirt and its practically illegal to fire someone for incompetence?

 

Again, what I'm saying it's not that way in germany.

You have all the opportunities but few of the shortcomings apart from normal problems that every country naturally has and always will have.

There was that book out awhile ago by a wealthy American author who lived the life of the American Lower Middle class for a year or something just to see what it's like in order to write the book, and her resumee was basically that once you're down to working at McDonalds and holding a second job at Walmart just to barely get by etc, you've pretty much had it, there is no getting out of that.

Does anybody remember the title or author, caused quite a wave a while ago?

So, asked like that, I would take Germany any time simply because the statistical likelihood of making it out of a very poor family there (and you don't have much choice in that matter), than in the US.


http://www.pbs.org/peoplelikeus/resources/stats.html

Or look at this here:

New Child Poverty numbers show U.S. lags other wealthy nations
New York state ranks dead last, with more than 26 percent of its children living in poverty:
Midwest U.S. has lowest child poverty.
For Immediate Release: Tuesday, February 22, 2001
Contact: Jill Leonhardt
Phone: 315-443-5492
E-mail: jlleonha@maxwell.syr.edu

New fully comparable figures on child poverty across the industrialized world and the 50 United States show a huge disparity from country to country and state to state. While Sweden leads the world with only 2.4 percent child poverty, New York State, at 26.3 percent, ranks last in the industrialized world – behind Italy at 19.3 percent, the closest OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) nation. California is not far behind with 25.7 percent, and in President Bush’s home state of Texas, 20.7 percent of the children live in poverty.

At the other end of the U.S. spectrum, North and South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, and Kansas were the top-ranked U.S. states – with 13 percent or lower child poverty. Overall, the U.S., with 20.3 percent child poverty, ranks behind all European nations.

The data comes from a ground-breaking new study, Child Well-Being, Child Poverty and Child Policy in Modern Nations, which provides, for the first time, state-based poverty rates that include benefits and taxes not captured by the “official” Census Bureau poverty statistics, and ones that are comparable with those of other nations.

Thus, one can compare poverty among children in U.S. states of 5 million to 20 million persons to those in European countries of about the same size.

“Despite high rates of economic growth and improvements in the standard of living in industrialized nations throughout the 20th century, a significant percentage of our children are still living in families that are so poor that normal health and growth are at risk,” according to Tim Smeeding, co-editor of the book and Maxwell Professor of Public Policy at The Maxwell School of Syracuse University.

“These numbers are startling and worrisome,” says Smeeding. “Of particular concern is how well states will be able to cope with the ongoing devolution of social assistance programs from the federal to state governments. The evidence in this book suggests that there is a large long-term public sector cost for poor kids in terms of health care, schools, crime, and other public expenditures. Welfare reform has been a great success for many low-income families because of the strong economy. But despite the growth in employment and low-paying jobs, there is still a significant poverty problem in the United States,” he adds.

“Unless we shore up the safety net as we enter this new economic downturn, the Bush Administration’s reliance on state efforts and religious organizations will fall far short of even maintaining the progress we have made over the past decade, much less further reducing child poverty in America or in any of its states,” Smeeding says.

“For the more affluent nations, child poverty is not a matter of affordability -- it is a matter of priority,” Smeeding says. “ Now while we talk of federal budget surpluses, it’s time to make the same commitment to wiping out child poverty in the United States that we made to wiping out old-age poverty 60 years ago. As Congress crafts its tax cut plan, it should consider progressive policies that would shore up income support for the working and nonworking poor. As the world’s most affluent economy, there are no valid excuses for our appallingly high child poverty rate.”

The new study underlines the need for a comprehensive national policy to reduce child poverty rates and to improve the well-being of children. It also identifies specific problem areas on which both federal and state policymakers committed to reducing child poverty must focus.

Employment: The most important step in reducing poverty among children is to assure that at least one parent is employed. In particular, the labor market positions of mothers need to be improved, as their earnings are crucial for maintaining an adequate standard of living in a society where two-income families dominate. Obviously, this is doubly true for single parents, where subsidized child care is an absolute necessity for employment.

Parental leave, child support and child-care support: In many cases, parents -- particularly single mothers -- need state support to enable them to work or to adequately take care of their children. Developing adequate parental leave programs, guarantees for child support not paid, and affordable child care are important conditions for keeping mothers in the full-time work force, and in preventing poverty among their children. Child support enforcement measures are important, although their potential for reducing child poverty is limited as many of the parents who fail to pay child support are more likely to be low earners themselves.

Child-related benefits: The minimum wage is insufficient to meet the income needs of working families with children. Full-time work at the current minimum wage leaves a family of three far below the poverty line. Additional child-related tax benefits, such as those mentioned above, are necessary to ensure that working families with children are not poor.

Investment in a socially oriented education policy: Central to the promotion of employment in a knowledge-based society is quality education for every child, regardless of his or her financial or health situation. There are indications that such policies could reduce the likelihood that child poverty is passed on from generation to generation.

# # #

http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/news/releases/child_povertypt.htm