Debate Thread

[Денг Гордон]

McCain started the debate by shaking hands with a domestic terrorist.

 

[Денг Гордон]

Re: Debrate Thread

Obama did well on the first question. John McCain is getting too close to the crowd right now.

 

[Денг Гордон]

Re: Debrate Thread

Keating Five reference coming in 5...4..3..2..1....

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

Re: Debrate Thread

huh huh...mccain said "mandate".

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

Re: Debrate Thread

Browkaw owning the fuck out of Obama!


"sit the fuck down bitch!"

 

[Денг Гордон]

Re: Debrate Thread

After Obama said "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran and annihilate North Korea", McCain completely fell off his game. He had no idea how to respond to that, and lost his temperment. I think McCain is in favor of Obama's policy, but he keeps being disaggreable.

 

[maxiep]

Re: Debrate Thread

McCain needed to change the game in this debate, and he didn't do it. I've felt this election was over for two weeks, and tonight did nothing to change my mind.

I'm now of the mind that we economic conservatives need to burn this mofo down. Forget McCain. Let Obama, Pelosi and Reid run this economy into the ground over the next 2-4 years. Let the people who called themselves economic conservatives yet who spent like Ted Kennedy get their asses voted out of office. They'll be replaced by REAL small government types after our effective tax rates are over 50% and we're running record deficits.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

Re: Debrate Thread

McCain needed to change the game in this debate, and he didn't do it. I've felt this election was over for two weeks, and tonight did nothing to change my mind.

I'm now of the mind that we economic conservatives need to burn this mofo down. Forget McCain. Let Obama, Pelosi and Reid run this economy into the ground over the next 2-4 years. Let the people who called themselves economic conservatives yet who spent like Ted Kennedy get their asses voted out of office. They'll be replaced by REAL small government types after our effective tax rates are over 50% and we're running record deficits.

Burn this motherfucker down!

 

[Nikolokolus]

Re: Debrate Thread

McCain needed to change the game in this debate, and he didn't do it. I've felt this election was over for two weeks, and tonight did nothing to change my mind.

I'm now of the mind that we economic conservatives need to burn this mofo down. Forget McCain. Let Obama, Pelosi and Reid run this economy into the ground over the next 2-4 years. Let the people who called themselves economic conservatives yet who spent like Ted Kennedy get their asses voted out of office. They'll be replaced by REAL small government types after our effective tax rates are over 50% and we're running record deficits.

It's a little late for that ... though I do agree that we need a heavy dose of fiscal responsibility in this country and entitlements are going to have to be given a serious look.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

Re: Debrate Thread

Its a matter of how many bailouts, handouts and move to a more socialist union we're going to have. Uggh, invisible hand I suppose...this is going to be disgusting.

 

[Денг Гордон]

Re: Debrate Thread

It's too late for Obama to run the economy into the ground, the Republicans already did it. I guess he can take it underground. Drill baby, drill!

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

Re: Debrate Thread

Its not the economy he is going to run into the ground. Its america itself. From socialized "robin hood" programs on down.

 

[barfo]

Re: Debrate Thread

I'm now of the mind that we economic conservatives need to burn this mofo down. Forget McCain. Let Obama, Pelosi and Reid run this economy into the ground over the next 2-4 years.

I'm now of the mind that we liberals need to burn this mofo down. Forget Gore and Kerry. Let Bush, Cheney, Hastert and Lott run this economy into the ground over the next 6-8 years.

Oh wait, mission accomplished.

barfo

 

[mook]

Re: Debrate Thread

I'm now of the mind that we economic conservatives need to burn this mofo down. Forget McCain. Let Obama, Pelosi and Reid run this economy into the ground over the next 2-4 years. Let the people who called themselves economic conservatives yet who spent like Ted Kennedy get their asses voted out of office. They'll be replaced by REAL small government types after our effective tax rates are over 50% and we're running record deficits.

As Medicare and Social Security have proven, once you initiate a popular liberal program, it's impossible to kill. It'll go on for decades and decades, and although people might get worried about such programs running out of money (as is happening with those two entitlements), all the anxiety you hear demonstrates just how popular those programs are.

Conservative programs generally involve tax cuts and deregulation, and while they make people happy, there really isn't a huge constituency that gets excited about making sure somebody pulling in $150k/year always pays low taxes. And it takes just a few stories about tainted food to make some regulations seem reasonable. That's why Bush's tax cuts will be long forgotten as we go back to Clinton-era taxation, and it's why we're in for some more heavy-handed regulation.

We're coming up on a massive, liberal overhaul of health care. And you may not like it, but similar overhauls in other Western democracies have been pretty popular and impossible to kill.

I have no doubt that within the next two to four years the Dems will do stuff that pisses everybody off, and Republicans will regain some control. Divided government just seems to work better. But by the time that happens, there are going to be some new liberal entitlements, and there will be no going back from them.

 

[SodaPopinski]

Re: Debrate Thread

I'm now of the mind that we liberals need to burn this mofo down. Forget Gore and Kerry. Let Bush, Cheney, Hastert and Lott run this economy into the ground over the next 6-8 years.

Oh wait, mission accomplished.

barfo

Conservatives pwned. Game, set, match.

-Pop

 

[maxiep]

Re: Debrate Thread

As Medicare and Social Security have proven, once you initiate a popular liberal program, it's impossible to kill. It'll go on for decades and decades, and although people might get worried about such programs running out of money (as is happening with those two entitlements), all the anxiety you hear demonstrates just how popular those programs are.

Conservative programs generally involve tax cuts and deregulation, and while they make people happy, there really isn't a huge constituency that gets excited about making sure somebody pulling in $150k/year always pays low taxes. And it takes just a few stories about tainted food to make some regulations seem reasonable. That's why Bush's tax cuts will be long forgotten as we go back to Clinton-era taxation, and it's why we're in for some more heavy-handed regulation.

We're coming up on a massive, liberal overhaul of health care. And you may not like it, but similar overhauls in other Western democracies have been pretty popular and impossible to kill.

I have no doubt that within the next two to four years the Dems will do stuff that pisses everybody off, and Republicans will regain some control. Divided government just seems to work better. But by the time that happens, there are going to be some new liberal entitlements, and there will be no going back from them.

That's an interesting hypothesis, but you're ignoring one simple fact: we can't pay for it. There have been so many silly entitlements that there's no more room in the budget for social programs. This is still a center-right nation. The Republicans are being excoriated because they were elected to make government smaller and they did the opposite. So the American people are going to punish them by voting them out of office. I say allow all the excesses the Left wants--let them reveal themselves and their true motives. It's only when they take off the mask that people will see who they really are.

And as for the promise of socialized medicine, it's clear you've never lived under such a system. I can assure you the healthcare in Spain, Sweden and Denmark doesn't hold a candle to that in the States.

 

[maxiep]

Re: Debrate Thread

Conservatives pwned. Game, set, match.

-Pop

Those people aren't conservatives. They're socialists with a strong belief in religion.

 

[mook]

Re: Debrate Thread

And as for the promise of socialized medicine, it's clear you've never lived under such a system. I can assure you the healthcare in Spain, Sweden and Denmark doesn't hold a candle to that in the States if you can afford it.

I fixed that for you. A pretty major caveat, given that the American system is getting more unaffordable to more people every day.

The health care systems in those countries are popular, just like Medicare is very popular here. I've read countless posts like yours, but the funny thing is that I've never seen any of them ever site opinion polls that show how unpopular those systems are to the citizens of those countries.

That's an interesting hypothesis, but you're ignoring one simple fact: we can't pay for it. There have been so many silly entitlements that there's no more room in the budget for social programs.

You may be right about the lack of funding. But the Democrats are going to gamble that once you put the system in place, it'll be so wildly popular that we'll find the money for it (likely through tax increases).

You may contend that they are wrong. You may think our center-right country will look on in horror, reject the system, throw all those liberals out in four years, and get us back to the way we were. (Just like Dems plan on rolling back the Bush tax cuts.)

But I can't help but point to Medicare and Social Security. They've survived liberal and conservative administrations. Through thick and thin, they just keep going and going. You can't kill entitlements because they are so popular, which is why conservatives view them as such a danger. Those two programs are huge refutations that Americans don't want to work on anything collectively through government action.

And I think in the next few years we're going to be in for some more examples. We'll see how long this place remains a "center-right" country.

 

[maxiep]

Re: Debrate Thread

Note: I typed a reply, but tried to open another tab and accidentally opened this one, which erased my response. This is my second go-round, so it will be shorter.

I fixed that for you. A pretty major caveat, given that the American system is getting more unaffordable to more people every day.

Healthcare isn't becoming less affordable, people demand to live at an unrealistic level. People believe it's their right to own their own house, to have a car or even more than one car, to have more than one bathroom, to have a bedroom for each of their kids, to have a computer, to have a television, etc., etc. At the point you can't afford any of the above, you're on public assistance and your healthcare is provided for you. People need to learn to live within their means.

The health care systems in those countries are popular, just like Medicare is very popular here. I've read countless posts like yours, but the funny thing is that I've never seen any of them ever site opinion polls that show how unpopular those systems are to the citizens of those countries.

You're the first person I've ever seen that called Medicare "popular". Medicare is widely regarded as a mess. So, you're proposing to take that mess and make it mandatory for the American people? No thanks.

Have you ever been hospitalized or treated in one of these countries? If you have, you wouldn't complain so much about US healthcare. And if you want to know what the opinion of the people abroad are, look to the best off among them. All over these countries, there are companies that offer health insurance--that sends you to the States for care when you're ill. Find anyone that can afford it, and chances are they have this kind of supplemental insurance at some level. For everyone else, they're stuck with their miserable care.

You may be right about the lack of funding. But the Democrats are going to gamble that once you put the system in place, it'll be so wildly popular that we'll find the money for it (likely through tax increases).

And if you find current premiums expensive, you haven't seen anything yet when it comes to your taxes. Once you take away competition and add in the dead weight loss of government handling your healthcare, socialized medicine will be more expensive than before, and less effective.

You may contend that they are wrong. You may think our center-right country will look on in horror, reject the system, throw all those liberals out in four years, and get us back to the way we were. (Just like Dems plan on rolling back the Bush tax cuts.)

But I can't help but point to Medicare and Social Security. They've survived liberal and conservative administrations. Through thick and thin, they just keep going and going. You can't kill entitlements because they are so popular, which is why conservatives view them as such a danger. Those two programs are huge refutations that Americans don't want to work on anything collectively through government action.

And I think in the next few years we're going to be in for some more examples. We'll see how long this place remains a "center-right" country.

If you look at any poll regarding taxes, people overwhelmingly say they pay too much. If you look at any poll regarding the role of government, people overwhelmingly say they play too much of a role in our lives. The problem is that we don't have a major party that is actively committed to shrinking government, because it's easier to give something than to take it away. In fact, it will take people willing to lose their seats to make real reform.

We are a center-right country. Poll after poll after poll shows it to be true. People want to live their lives unfettered by interference. Those on the right want less government in their business and those on the left want less government in their bedroom. However, people right now look at the Republicans and see how corrupt they've become. The Democrats could field a tapeworm and it would win the Presidency. It's not about a move to the left, it's about "change".

 

[mook]

Re: Debrate Thread

I'm not really interested in (yet another) debate about the merits of health care reform and Obama's plan. We're all probably pretty tired of re-hashing the same points.

What I am interested in is whether you agree with the following basic points I'm making:

1. The Democrats are likely going to win, and win big.
2. They will be able to force through a new health care program with far more government involvement.
3. They may not be able to afford it long-term, but they will bank on the fact that it'll be tough to kill once it gets started, and they think Americans will be willing to pay for it with higher taxes long-term.

I think those three points are pretty much a foregone conclusion. But I could be wrong. If I am, I'd like to know why.

If you agree with those points, do you think it's likely that it costs them hugely in either 2 or 4 years?

 

[Dumpy]

Re: Debrate Thread

I am in favor of a limited government-provided health care system, and here's why.

(1) Naysayers often argue that those without health care should just get jobs. However, there are many people that DO have jobs, that DO work hard, but don't have health care. These include independent contractors, artists, musicians, artisans (e.g., those that make and sell their own furniture). You can't tell me that these people refuse to work--they just don't work for corporations.

(2) [This is my own argument, and I've never seen it anywhere else]. I believe that a limited government-sponsored health care system will, in turn, positively affect the economy and increase innovation and the development of new technology in this country. Here's why. Let's say that you are an entrepreneur, or you are an inventor, or you have an idea for a new technology that will make everyone's lives better. In order to develop this idea or technology, you have to leave your corporate job and work for yourself. Maybe you will succeed. Maybe you will fail. But now there is an additional variable to consider along with the potential rewards: Is it worth giving up your work-provided health care to pursue the development of this novel idea or technology? Maybe, if you are single. But what if you have a family? I submit that some entrepreneurs are reluctant to go out on their own, because they are afraid of what the loss of health care will mean to their family. The long term result is that entrepreneurial spirit is not allowed to flourish. Providing health care to these people will essentially be an investment in the nation's human capital, an investment in the innovation and ideas--and ingenuity--of American citizens. Somewhere out there may be another Edison who is considering leaving his corporate job to develop the light bulb. He should have that opportunity, without putting the health of his family at risk. Therefore, some limited, basic health care coverage will allow the economy to grow by removing one of the barriers to sole proprietorship and small business.

 

[Minstrel]

Re: Debrate Thread

Have you ever been hospitalized or treated in one of these countries? If you have, you wouldn't complain so much about US healthcare. And if you want to know what the opinion of the people abroad are, look to the best off among them. All over these countries, there are companies that offer health insurance--that sends you to the States for care when you're ill. Find anyone that can afford it, and chances are they have this kind of supplemental insurance at some level. For everyone else, they're stuck with their miserable care.

I've lived in Sweden. The health care system is quite universally popular, across the classes. There are obviously some who don't care for it, but far fewer, as a percentage basis of the "rich," than in the US. Going to other countries for care doesn't say anything...all over the US, there are people who go to India now for major procedures because India has cutting-edge medicine, but much more efficient processes, so they can offer the best skill and techniques for much less than in the US.

The health care is really not significantly worse quality in Sweden than in the US, but everyone has access to it. This leads to higher taxation, of course, but the culture is different...across Northern and Western Europe, people (even the well-off) believe that everyone has some responsibility to the society as a whole, rather than taking the viewpoint that they somehow earned all their money with no help from society and should therefore be left alone.

If this "socialist steam-roller" that you seem certain is coming creates a similar system of health care here in the US, I'll be very happy. I'm upper-middle class...I can afford my own health care and insurance, pretty much anything I need or want. Such a system wouldn't benefit me, so this isn't a desire for government to "entitle" me to something. But I think it is absolutely vital. I don't think you're on the mark about Obama or the Democrat congress...I don't think they are even close to embracing what is called socialism in Europe. But if they do a strong universal health care system, that will be wonderful.

 

[maxiep]

Re: Debrate Thread

I've lived in Sweden. The health care system is quite universally popular, across the classes. There are obviously some who don't care for it, but far fewer, as a percentage basis of the "rich," than in the US. Going to other countries for care doesn't say anything...all over the US, there are people who go to India now for major procedures because India has cutting-edge medicine, but much more efficient processes, so they can offer the best skill and techniques for much less than in the US.

That was not my experience living in Sodermalm. I found the dismissal of their healthcare as ineffective and inefficient as the norm, and as a business owner there it was to my benefit to have universal healthcare.

The health care is really not significantly worse quality in Sweden than in the US, but everyone has access to it. This leads to higher taxation, of course, but the culture is different...across Northern and Western Europe, people (even the well-off) believe that everyone has some responsibility to the society as a whole, rather than taking the viewpoint that they somehow earned all their money with no help from society and should therefore be left alone.

Sweden's culture of lagom isn't the same as the States, nor should we strive for it to be so. In fact, one of the real issues for Sweden is the flight of their brightest minds because of income redistribution. They'll have the government pay for them to attend Lund or Uppsala and then they'll clear out.

If this "socialist steam-roller" that you seem certain is coming creates a similar system of health care here in the US, I'll be very happy. I'm upper-middle class...I can afford my own health care and insurance, pretty much anything I need or want. Such a system wouldn't benefit me, so this isn't a desire for government to "entitle" me to something. But I think it is absolutely vital. I don't think you're on the mark about Obama or the Democrat congress...I don't think they are even close to embracing what is called socialism in Europe. But if they do a strong universal health care system, that will be wonderful.

It sounds like you'll receive a psychic benefit from knowing that others are cared for. I happen to believe in rugged individualism. I believe in assistance for those who are truly in need, but what our social programs are creating is a permanent underclass. These people know nothing else other than relying on the government for their existance. I happen to think this development is corrosive for both society and the individual. We were meant for work. If we, through the sweat of our brow, happen to achieve more than others, that's something to which we should endeavor. Instead, it seems more than ever we're living by the old Russian proverb, "the tallest blade of grass is the first to meet the scythe."

 

[maxiep]

Re: Debrate Thread

I am in favor of a limited government-provided health care system, and here's why.

(1) Naysayers often argue that those without health care should just get jobs. However, there are many people that DO have jobs, that DO work hard, but don't have health care. These include independent contractors, artists, musicians, artisans (e.g., those that make and sell their own furniture). You can't tell me that these people refuse to work--they just don't work for corporations.

Isn't that their choice to pursue those vocations? I remember once when I was starting my own company I paid for catastrophic insurance. I believe it covered anything over $5K and it cost me $41/mo. There are all sorts of private policies avalable.

(2) [This is my own argument, and I've never seen it anywhere else]. I believe that a limited government-sponsored health care system will, in turn, positively affect the economy and increase innovation and the development of new technology in this country. Here's why. Let's say that you are an entrepreneur, or you are an inventor, or you have an idea for a new technology that will make everyone's lives better. In order to develop this idea or technology, you have to leave your corporate job and work for yourself. Maybe you will succeed. Maybe you will fail. But now there is an additional variable to consider along with the potential rewards: Is it worth giving up your work-provided health care to pursue the development of this novel idea or technology? Maybe, if you are single. But what if you have a family? I submit that some entrepreneurs are reluctant to go out on their own, because they are afraid of what the loss of health care will mean to their family. The long term result is that entrepreneurial spirit is not allowed to flourish. Providing health care to these people will essentially be an investment in the nation's human capital, an investment in the innovation and ideas--and ingenuity--of American citizens. Somewhere out there may be another Edison who is considering leaving his corporate job to develop the light bulb. He should have that opportunity, without putting the health of his family at risk. Therefore, some limited, basic health care coverage will allow the economy to grow by removing one of the barriers to sole proprietorship and small business.

There is also the profit motive. To pay for this healthcare, taxes will be have to be so high as to not make being an entrepreneur worthwhile.

I'm actually not opposed to an extremely limited form of subsidized healthcare that bookends the cost spectrum. On the lower end of the cost spectrum, I'd like to see incentives for RNs to become ANPs and hang their own shingles. You could then provide a voucher for one physical per year to be done by an ANP, which would cut the cost by 1/2 or 2/3. That takes care of the preventive medical issue.

On the other end of the spectrum, I'd like for the government to provide catastophic insurance for those cases say above $200K. If you eliminate those tails, private insurance gets much cheaper and everyone is able to be covered by themselves at a reasonable price.

 

[Minstrel]

Re: Debrate Thread

Sweden's culture of lagom isn't the same as the States, nor should we strive for it to be so. In fact, one of the real issues for Sweden is the flight of their brightest minds because of income redistribution. They'll have the government pay for them to attend Lund or Uppsala and then they'll clear out.

I didn't find that to be accurate at all. Sweden isn't isolated in government paying for education...that's common, to varying extents, across Europe. Europe isn't experiencing "brain drain." They're just as active in science and technology as the US and the economy of the EU surpasses that of the US. In basically all measures of standard of living, innovation, economic strength and health, Europe does as well or better than the US and shows no signs of suffering ill-effects from embracing more socialism than the US does.

It sounds like you'll receive a psychic benefit from knowing that others are cared for.

I guess we'll all receive "psychic benefit" from things going the way we think is right. That, of course, is not what I meant. I meant that I don't support this because I need it. The insinuation from conservatives is generally that health care or other forms of "wealth redistribution" is a form of class warfare, with the have-nots jealously demanding that their superiors share their wealth. I think that common suggestion (not necessarily from you; I have no idea what your position on that is and I'm not attributing it to you) is an enormous distortion and I wanted to make it clear that that's certainly not where I am coming from.

I happen to believe in rugged individualism.

No one is rugged individualist in today's society. Cowboy culture is over. Every man and woman depends on society in a number of ways every day. And certainly no one earns their money in a vacuum. Put whoever you consider the best businessman/woman on a desert island and see how much money they make.

If we, through the sweat of our brow, happen to achieve more than others, that's something to which we should endeavor.

I agree. I am not in favour of communism, or equality of results. I think people should be able to rise above others through dint of their own efforts. However, I believe in equality of opportunity, which I don't think we remotely have. In the absence of equality of opportunity, I think wealth redistribution makes a necessary compromise...opportunity is unequal, so we recognize that and adjust for that by pooling some of that money to help those who need it.

 

[maxiep]

Re: Debrate Thread

I didn't find that to be accurate at all. Sweden isn't isolated in government paying for education...that's common, to varying extents, across Europe. Europe isn't experiencing "brain drain." They're just as active in science and technology as the US and the economy of the EU surpasses that of the US. In basically all measures of standard of living, innovation, economic strength and health, Europe does as well or better than the US and shows no signs of suffering ill-effects from embracing more socialism than the US does.

I didn't say that Sweden was unique in paying for university. I just said that those that have the ability to to truly excel oftentimes head to the States. Part of the reason has to do with the strong cultural connection that nine required years of English in school provides. Part of it is that there are Swedes who don't wish to feel constrained by their society's insistence on community before the individual.

And I wasn't talking about Europe, I was talking about Sweden. There are countries that offer plenty of opportunity on the Continent. But lets not pretend there aren't plenty of Euros who wish to work in Silicon Valley or on Route 128. And your point doesn't even address business or medicine.

And as for standard of living, we're going to agree to disagree. There's a higher variance of standard here, but our standard is higher. Our unemployment is lower than the EU and our goods and services are less expensive. Our homes are bigger and a higher percentage of those in the US own automobiles. Their poor live in hardscrabble conditions as do ours, with narcotics and hoplessness in large supply. Their wealthy live much more modest lives. Finally, their middle class live a life with fewer material possessions.

Let us not forget that most of Europe finances its socialist paradise under our security umbrella. If Europe were forced to pay their share of that function, they'd find those state benefits much harder to support.

I guess we'll all receive "psychic benefit" from things going the way we think is right. That, of course, is not what I meant. I meant that I don't support this because I need it. The insinuation from conservatives is generally that health care or other forms of "wealth redistribution" is a form of class warfare, with the have-nots jealously demanding that their superiors share their wealth. I think that common suggestion (not necessarily from you; I have no idea what your position on that is and I'm not attributing it to you) is an enormous distortion and I wanted to make it clear that that's certainly not where I am coming from.

I don't dislike socialized medicine because it's about wealth redistribution. I dislike it because it provides fewer services at a higher cost. I dislike it because I prefer freedom over equality. I dislike it because the next step in socialized medicine is telling doctors how much they can make and pharmaceutical companies how much they can charge for a drug.

No one is rugged individualist in today's society. Cowboy culture is over. Every man and woman depends on society in a number of ways every day. And certainly no one earns their money in a vacuum. Put whoever you consider the best businessman/woman on a desert island and see how much money they make.

We have different definitions of what it means to be a rugged individualist. Howard Roark was a rugged individualist (although fictional). I'm not against living in a community using money as a medium to exchange the goods and services I supply to the economy for other goods and services. I'm against having my life largely dictated to my by a faceless bureaucracy.

I agree. I am not in favour of communism, or equality of results. I think people should be able to rise above others through dint of their own efforts. However, I believe in equality of opportunity, which I don't think we remotely have. In the absence of equality of opportunity, I think wealth redistribution makes a necessary compromise...opportunity is unequal, so we recognize that and adjust for that by pooling some of that money to help those who need it.

I believe in a level playing field, but I also believe it's okay if others get a head start. In fact, it's virtually impossible to offer equality of opportunity without first creating equality of results. Otherwise, everyone would go to Choate or Deerfield rather than P.S. 38. And since that can't happen, life is ruled by the lowest common denominator, which means we all live a lesser life.

 

[Minstrel]

Re: Debrate Thread

I didn't say that Sweden was unique in paying for university. I just said that those that have the ability to to truly excel oftentimes head to the States.

Which I don't think is at all true. There are Swedes who head to the States, just as there are Americans who go to Europe and other parts of the world. It has nothing to do with ability to excel as it does philosophies, desired cultures and a multitude of other factors. I think your implication that the Swedes who go to America are a picked population of the brightest isn't correct.

But lets not pretend there aren't plenty of Euros who wish to work in Silicon Valley or on Route 128.[

And vice versa. Many bright American minds would love to work at CERN.

And as for standard of living, we're going to agree to disagree. There's a higher variance of standard here, but our standard is higher.

I don't think international measures support that at all. International quality of life and standard of living indicators that I've seen over the years generally don't rank the US at the top. The US is certainly not bad, but Scandinavian countries are often near the top, along with assorted other European nations. My own experience was that services were cheaper, the people I knew were just as materially prosperous as the the people I know in the US and land prices were great.

I believe in a level playing field, but I also believe it's okay if others get a head start. In fact, it's virtually impossible to offer equality of opportunity without first creating equality of results.

It's impossible to offer equality of opportunity, so the answer is to recognize that it's a fallacy to insist everyone "gets what they deserve" as though everything is in a pure competition. Pure competitions don't bequeath certain participants head starts. There's an inherent fairness, not unfairness, in offering services to everyone, largely financed by those who have succeeded the most. They didn't succeed in a perfectly fair competition, so there's no justification to saying that every cent they made is only theirs and society has no claim on any of it.

 

[Dumpy]

I just don't grasp the aversion to government-provided health care, particularly from certain religious groups. Providing health care to all citizens is no less a moral issue than promoting life over abortion. For those whose political views are informed by their religious views, I don't understand why the two issues aren't viewed in tandem.

 

[maxiep]

Re: Debrate Thread

Which I don't think is at all true. There are Swedes who head to the States, just as there are Americans who go to Europe and other parts of the world. It has nothing to do with ability to excel as it does philosophies, desired cultures and a multitude of other factors. I think your implication that the Swedes who go to America are a picked population of the brightest isn't correct.

Look at the top Ph.D candidates. If they can, they head here. In fact, there's a US-based group of Swedish academics that help grease the skids. They take a look at who has promise and then try to get them here. Why? Because Sweden's educational system can't offer the same opportunities as does ours. Many never go back.

Are there backpackers and models that leave Sweden for the States? You bet. Are they germaine to the conversation? Not really.

And vice versa. Many bright American minds would love to work at CERN.

One lab vs. an entire industrial area. Sure, I can pick the outliers too. If you look at employment ingress/egress figures, you'll see that more educated Euros head to the States than do educated people from the States head to Europe.

I don't think international measures support that at all. International quality of life and standard of living indicators that I've seen over the years generally don't rank the US at the top. The US is certainly not bad, but Scandinavian countries are often near the top, along with assorted other European nations.

Those figures are based on the overall population. In the Scandinavian countries, the economic distribution is tighter, which leads to higher scores. In the States, the distribution is much broader. However, it's tough to take a look at an average city, town or suburb in the States, compare it with one in Scandinavia or Western Europe and say objectively that they're wealthier or have the ability to purchase more goods and services.

My own experience was that services were cheaper, the people I knew were just as materially prosperous as the the people I know in the US and land prices were great.

What goods and services? Food? Booze? Entertainment (movies, going out to dinner, going to a club, plays, the opera, etc.)? A health club membership? Petrol? Similar housing? Even a ride on the Tunnelbana which is heavily subsidized isn't cheaper than our mass transit. When you throw the VAT on top of everything, the cost of living is even more expensive. The numbers bear it out.

There are all kinds of rich people in Sweden; I used to race with them on the Gotland Runt. Generally, they had inherited wealth because the business climate there makes it tough to earn massive wealth without moving your personal fortune out of the country. I'm a fan of economic mobility. Creeping socialism tends to freeze that mobility with everyone remaining where they are.

As for land prices there, it's the size of California with 9MM people. It's pretty sparsely populated. Stockholm is comparable in size to Portland. Let me assure you that the cost of my flat on Soder was about four times what a comparable apartment would be in PDX. But my little cottage on the Archipelago? That was dirt cheap. Of course, I only leased the land from the government.

It's impossible to offer equality of opportunity, so the answer is to recognize that it's a fallacy to insist everyone "gets what they deserve" as though everything is in a pure competition. Pure competitions don't bequeath certain participants head starts. There's an inherent fairness, not unfairness, in offering services to everyone, largely financed by those who have succeeded the most. They didn't succeed in a perfectly fair competition, so there's no justification to saying that every cent they made is only theirs and society has no claim on any of it.

I can't express how much I disagree with this sentiment. I don't believe it's "fairness" to have someone else dictate that someone else should part with their money. What if government dictated that those in California or Massachusetts made too much from their homes and should distribute that wealth to those who live in Kansas or Oklahoma and who didn't make money from buying a house and living in it for a decade? After all, is it fair that someone is lucky enough to live in a good real estate market while others live in a market where the only valuation is the cost of materials plus cheap land?

In my opinion it's a dangerous and slippery slope for government to make concrete judgments against those who have been lucky enough or who worked hard enough to do well, not to put a roof over someone's head or food in their belly, but to subsidize their lives at a middle-class standard. I have no problem helping the truly needy. I have a real problem helping those that are perfectly capable of helping themselves.

I have no problem with the lucky sperm club. I happened to roll snake eyes on that one and had to earn what little I have through working harder than most. I prefer to look at those who have done better than I have with admiration rather than figuring out how I can bring them down to my level. By that view, rather than allowing society to draft off the fastest among us, you put a restrictor plate on it, thereby limiting our advancement.

 

[maxiep]

I just don't grasp the aversion to government-provided health care, particularly from certain religious groups. Providing health care to all citizens is no less a moral issue than promoting life over abortion. For those whose political views are informed by their religious views, I don't understand why the two issues aren't viewed in tandem.

There are plenty of congregations that pass around the collection plate when one of their parishiners is in need. If I had to guess, it's the idea that government is the answer to all of our problems. Oftentimes, local charities do a better job. In fact, many hospitals are subsidized by churches.