Musikman: perhaps you should brush up on *your* history:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history#The_Americas
Saying that mass murder is caused by the communist ideology is like saying that pre-emptive wars are caused by democracy.
Although Communism looks great on paper there are big problems with the philosophy, not every human is willing to put other people's needs ahead of their own and will use the situation to their own advantage. Whereas the theory would perhaps work if humans were a perfect species, but we're not.
Throughout history most States have mass-murdered innocents, whether in war or peace, in order to get oponents out of the way and establish their power. The US has killed 100,000 Iraqis in less than a quarter of the time it took Saddam Hussein to kill 300,000. Does this mean that Democracy is now to blame for mass murder? (Although I find we are quickly moving away from a democracy but that is another subject).
The rich don't really have a need for government protection, they have enough money to protect themselves both physically and legally. The only people that need the government's protection are those who can't afford it. For the rich the government is just a cheaper way of maintaining their security.
And considering that, proportionately speaking, the rich are the least likely to pay their taxes it actually becomes quite a deal for them.
I don't have time to respond to your second parragraph at the moment although honestly, if my money were to actually make a difference in a third world country, I would be happy to give it BUT handing money to governments of the developing word is not the solution as it tends to get squandered in corruption. That's why donating through an established charity is the way to go.
Mind you, I am not really a socialist, in fact, when I was living full-time in the US I thought socialism was just one step away from communism, as you do.
My whole gripe is that I still firmly believe that the two undeniable rights every goverment should provide to its citizens in return for their taxes are healthcare and education. I'm not talking about handouts for everything.
What does the "US government outperform the European" in? You probably mean economics.
This is because in the US, the accumulation of wealth is the purpose of life (in addition to constantly having to prove that Americans are "better" than the rest of the world). Europeans are quite happy with their values and are willing to give up some material wealth for them. In the US, people live to work; in Europe, people work to live.
You say, high taxation (in the US) "discourages economic growth by messing up people's incentives to work", but in Europe it stimulates people's incentive to live a happy life by providing a comfortable environment. It's amazing that Europe has gotten that far, although they have such a messed up system (in your opinion). Let's see, they have better cars, better planes, better food, better museums, better health care systems, better retirement systems, better TV programs, nicer furniture, fashion, hmmm...
In the US you are allowed to value what you'd like to value. If you want to dedicate your life to the pursuit of money, that's fine. If you want to dedicate your life to friends, family, music, the good of society or religion, that's also fine. Europe, however, tells you what you should value through its intrusive government.
European taxes cause people to live what you consider a "happy life." I find it arrogant to force other people to live as you want them to because you think you know what they need more than they do.
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/indincdi.pdfLook at figure c on page 5. The top 1% pays 3 times as much proportionally as the bottom 50% do. This would be even larger in Europe.
And your little sentence on European superiority is laughable. I'd put a US F-22 against any European plane.
Hmm, I was just looking at this figure. Can you explain to me how you arrive at your claims? Also, don't pay any attention to the fact that that statistics ends with the year 1996... In any case, as far as I can tell, the top 1% payed a lot less than the bottom 50%, and only around 1996 reached the same level. Am I looking at the same figure you were referring to?
Huh? You think these things are impossible in Europe? I live in Europe and I value exactly what I want.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Have you lived in Europe? Europeans are much more involved in politics than Americans. When they elect a government, they do this with conscient reasons. In other words, they know who they elect, and they know what they get - in advance. And the governments are accountable for their actions to their citizens. Europeans are not forced to live that way. It IS their way of living.
I think this shows the difference between modern liberalism and conservatism. When I said "Europeans," I meant individuals that live in Europe. You took it to mean Europe as a society. While the vast majorities of Europeans may prefer a socialist state, Europeans who don't want one have to live there too. It's their rights I'm concerned about. It ISN'T their way of living, but they have to live it anyway.
Europe allows you to pursue the things in the second sentence, but it does not allow you to pursue the accumulation of wealth to the degree that America lets you.
Which "rights" exactly?
1. How do you define Europe, and which country in Europe do you think is socialist?2. There are always some people who will disagree with the way of living in any country. What about the 50% of Americans who don't want their government, yet, they have to live with it anyway?
I guess you've never heard of Karl Albrecht, Ingvar Kamprad, Silvio Berlusconi, Amancio Ortega, JK Rowling, or other Europeans who pursued what they love doing, and became self-made Billionaires?
Figure c shows how much of GDP is earned by the various groups, E is taxation. The 1996 thing is unimportant. The only change that has happened since then is the Bush tax cut. And that actually increased the progressivity of the tax codes, even though it went primarily to the wealthy.(The rich got a higher amount of money but a smaller percent break than the poor.) The exact rates are unimportant, as my point was simply that Elena's claim that the rich pay less taxes than the poor is false.
While the vast majorities of Europeans may prefer a socialist state, Europeans who don't want one have to live there too. It's their rights I'm concerned about. It ISN'T their way of living, but they have to live it anyway.
I think the disagreements, I've been having with all you lefties, stems from one point. I believe that the government should not take someone's property and redistribute it.
You use the term "socialist", but you are not aware of the fact that it effectively means "communist". You redefine it to suit your arguments. What you mean is "social".
You call other people "lefties", because they are fine with higher taxes. You obviosuly don't know that there are successful parties and governments in Europe that are as right as the US republicans, or even more right. Being "right" in Europe has a lot less to do with taxes than you think.
You talk about "the rights of people in Europe not being protected". What you mean is the right to get insanely rich. Think about the following: There is pretty much a fixed amount of money on this planet (not taking inflation into account). Therefore, whenever someone gets rich, someone else has to pay for it. The US economic landscape ecourages people to get rich and neglects those who have to pay. In other words, the government protects those who can sucessfully rip off their fellow citizens or the rest of the world. They effectively say "If you can suck 'em dry, kudos to you. If they are not able to do the same to their fellow citizens, then they don't deserve better". The opposite is true in Europe. Europe protects those who have to pay by making sure they are not exploited. Indeed, you can't fire someone for not working 16 hours a day, and if you are cought with illegal immigrants or pay below minimal wages, you are in serious trouble.As a consequence, it is more difficult to get rich in Europe, there is no denying, but it keeps social peace, and this is obviously more important to Europeans (who have struggled with social peace for a long time) than it is to Americans, and unfortunately, the US are spreading this attitude across the entire globe.
I couldn't agree with you more. As one who pays a huge amount of my earnings in federal taxes, it infuriates me to no end that my hard earned dollars are being used to finance an illegal war costing upwards of $200 billion.
MM, May I recommend that you read a wonderful, well-researched books about taxation in America, "Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich - and Cheat Everybody Else" by David Cay Johnston(https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1591840198/qid=1106642953/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/102-9974555-3372160 ) which contains interviews with IRS agents, tax attorneys, government officials and many others involved in the tax system. The fact that the highest percentage of taxes goes to the rich means nothing when it comes to the real percentage the rich end up paying after squirreling their money away through the many loopholes of the US tax system (which is 17,000 pages long, what country in their right mind has a tax code 17,000 pages long?). In fact, after all the offshore accounts, "charity" donations and other loopholes, the rich in the USA end up paying about 15% of their real income, the same as the lowest income bracket. You should read up on the subject before you start defending the US tax code.
What about the VAST majority of Americans who can't afford healthcare and have none? Don't they have the same "rights" that money hungry individuals have in Europe? I must say, I find your comment pretty amusing.
It does not effectively mean communist. But if you wanna get into a fight about semantics, you can do it by yourself. What term would you prefer that I use to talk about the governments of Europe?
Favoring more government control of the economy is a "left" position. Since we're only debating economic policy and not foreign policy, how is it inaccurate to call people who favor the left position on economics lefties? If a right-wing party favors economic regulation, it is supporting a leftist position.
You obviously have absolutely no understanding of economics if you actually believe the part of the quote I bolded. The amount of wealth in the world is not fixed at all.
Once again I have to say that Healthcare is not a right. No one has a "right" to make a doctor treat their illnesses. However, people should have the right not to be forced to obtain their healthcare from the government, especially as this ends up costing much more than obtaining it from the private sector. That being said, I believe that everyone should be forced to purchase catastrophic health insurance, so that in case of any emergency they can be cared for.
To give you a short synopsis:Socialism: An economic and political system in which private property is abolished and the means of production (i.e., capital and land) are collectively owned and operated by the community as a whole in order to advance the interests of all. In Marxist ideology, socialism is considered an intermediate stage in the inevitable transformation of capitalism into communism. A socialist society is envisioned as being characterized by the dictatorship of the proletariat; the existence of a high degree of cooperation and equality; and the absence of discrimination, poverty, exploitation, and war. With the non-existence of private ownership, the private profit motive is eliminated from economic life. Consequently, market forces do not play a role in organizing the process of production. Instead, large-scale government planning is employed to ensure the harmonious operation of the process of productionEurope is far away from this. Communist states call themselves "socialist", whereas what you mean is described as "social democracy", and there is a huge difference. This is by no means semantics, as there are fundamental differences.
Then it can't be that "right". Now, that's semnatics, so I suggest to get rid of the stupid generalization "left" and "right". They obviously mean different things in Europe compared to the US, which many Americans don't realize and then make false claims.
And you are not reading what other people write. I said MONEY, not wealth. I am not considering land, gold, or anything else that someone would consider wealth, whereas someone else might not. Money, however, is absolute in this respect, and that's what I was talking about. So, if someone accumulates a lot of money, someone else has to pay for it. It's really very simple, and doesn't require taking a course in economics.
In Europe it is exactly the other way around. Healthcare costs a lot more in the private sector than when obtained from the government. The standard of this healthcare is very high. And now you are saying people should be "forced" to get certain insurance. How do you force them? Of course, by making them pay taxes.
Whoa there, buddy! Now whether or not you support this war, the money to pay for it is coming out of our pockets. (and future generations) This alone makes it relevant to the discussion. In fact, if you do some digging, you can discover that the majority of what's collected by the government goes to corporations, through contracts. Follow the money trail.... talk about redistributing wealth!
A public health system also removes people's incentive to take care of themselves and to use health care only when nessecary. If the government is going to pay for any medical expenses you incur, you have less reason to live your life in a healthy manner.
I don't get to post here as often as I'd like to, nor do I have the time to devote to this thread what I'd like to. I plan to try later, but I will simply say for now that in reading some of the descriptions of left vs. right by the left here, and some of the other comments made by those who describe themselves as being on the left, I can only shake my head in amazement. So many completely uninformed opinions. Then I read the post above, and I realize than apparently many people end up considering themselves as leftists because they simply lack the capacity to reason.
You're still outright wrong. New money is created all the time, usually at a rate that exceeds the growth of wealth(Which is why inflation exists in the first place.) The Federal reserve prints plenty of new money, and even if no new money was printed your point, that since money is fixed, the only way to get rich is at the expense of others, would be false. If the monetary supply stayed the same while the amount of goods produced increased, money would appreciate. While a person wouldn't have more money, he could purchase more goods with it.
And your statement about land, gold and other sources of "wealth" not being equivalent to money is false. The market assigns a monetary value to all these things. They can readily be converted to cash. All that money is is a medium for exchanging different forms of wealth.
I'd like to state again that your view that people earn money through the exploitation of others is false. They are paid for the goods and services that they produce. If I get paid $50,000 a year as an Engineer, it is in exchange for $50,000 worth of services that I produced for the corporation that employed me.
Healthcare costs more in the the European private sector due to the government. Healthcare would be cheaper in a free-market Europe than it is today. There are many reasons for this. First, governments don't have to deal with competition, so they have no incentives to operate efficiently. The private market, however, is cutthroat. If a company doesn't provide goods in an efficent manner, it'll lose business. A perfect example of this is American auto companies. They became bloated and sold poorly made cars, so foreign car companies took a large share of the market. Now American car companies are scrambling to become comptetitive again.
Oh Egon, quit your sockpuppeting, and stop landing personal insults, you so enjoy degenerating healthy disagreements.
If you're of the opinion that I am some alter ego of Egon, you are quite mistaken. Don't marginalize me because you don't agree with me. Contrary to what you may think, Egon is not the only person in this world who hasn't been sucked under by leftist ideology.
[quote from musik_man]"You're still outright wrong. New money is created all the time, usually at a rate that exceeds the growth of wealth(Which is why inflation exists in the first place.) The Federal reserve prints plenty of new money, and even if no new money was printed your point, that since money is fixed, the only way to get rich is at the expense of others, would be false. If the monetary supply stayed the same while the amount of goods produced increased, money would appreciate. While a person wouldn't have more money, he could purchase more goods with it. "Money is created because bills get ripped and unusable. Any money in addition is inflation, and it reduces the value of the money, so in essence, money is fixed.Money is created because bills get ripped and unusable. Any money in addition is inflation, and it reduces the value of the money, so in essence, money is fixed.
Musik_Man, you talk about others' lack of knowledge of economics, yet you aquate creating money with printing new currency?
Just because someone makes money doesn't mean they take it away from someone else.
Money is created because bills get ripped and unusable. Any money in addition is inflation, and it reduces the value of the money, so in essence, money is fixed.
Wealth means a lot of different things in different cultures. It makes no sense to compare different markets using "wealth". OK, then let's convert everything into money. It is still true that when someone gets rich, money has to change hands, and somone else has to pay for it.
The "European way" is making sure that people are payed fairly and that they don't have to do unreasonable things to satisfy their employers. Unfortunately, much of American "wealth" is based on just that.
Deregulation and moving vital activities from the government sector to the private sector in the US have led to a very low quality of those things. "Cutthroat" means that everyone is trying to get by with the minimum. And this is obviously not enough. The roads are quite bad, there is very little public transportation, the school system is lousy, science and engineering is dominated by foreigners who have been educated in their countries, the healthcare and retirement systems are in a "crisis", power and water supplies are often limited and unreliable and of low quality. There is a record deficit, the average personal debt is as high as in no other country, and 25% of the world pollution come from the US (and of course, nobody is doing anything about this, as it would hurt the economy, so let the other countries deal with it). The only thing that stands out is the military (I wonder why). Heck, there is not even a consistent phone system. You'd say that is just fine, because if someone wants all that to be of high quality, they should pay for it themselves (and import it from Europe or Asia).
Your theory of human psychology is also very amusing, I doubt it would pass a basic psychology 101 class. So in your opinion US citizens take care of themselves not because they want to live longer and healthier but because they don't want to spend extra money??
The smoking thing is the Scarlett Letter on Europe. But the governments are working very hard at removing it, they have finally realized the financial costs of such stupid behavior.
By the way, I pay about 600 Euros a year for my private health insurance in Spain. Last I looked in the US it was substantially more ($1500 or so). So much for that theory as well.
PS- I will take your lack of reply to my question regarding your real acquaintance with Europe to mean that either you have never been here at all and your assumptions are based on second hand information or that you have come in a tour group full of Americans.
So I assume that this is a thread that seeks to compare liberalism with conversatism to find which is the better of the two. Arguing from the present standpoint will not achieve anything - most people are too set in their opinions to seriously consider changing their beliefs. But if you view all of human history from an objective standpoint, you will easily see that liberalism always..... and I mean always prevails over conservative ideologies. From this you could not reason which is better, but you could certainly reason which of the two is more practical and more natural in regards to the progress of human development.
Think about every famous hero or martyr from histroy: Jesus, Joan of Arc, writers of the US constitution, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr, Ghandi, etc.Each one was considered a radical - extreme leftist - in his or her time.
Jesus was apolitical, (give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's.)Joan of Arc was a hyper nationalist more akin to conservatives in the US, don't you think?The writers of the Constitution, were Lockean Empiricists that would seem to be ultra Libertarians in today's society.Abraham Lincoln was a good Republican: his interest was NOT freeing the slaves, but holding the union together.MLK, well Bobby Kennedy agreed with you that he was a radical.Ghandi, Nationalist, first class.Want to "etc." some more?
Abraham Lincoln was a good Republican: his interest was NOT freeing the slaves
Liberalism and Conservatism are not political parties! They are adjectives used to describe tendencies whether it be a person, political party, or an organization. Therefore, you do not need to say you are a Democrat, Republican, etc to be classified as having liberal tendencies.Let us not forget that the Republican Party was once the liberal party in America - so Abe Lincoln can most certainly be described as having leftist tendencies regardless of his party affiliation or intent on freeing slaves. You are also confusing theory with practice, whether or not Abe Lincoln really wanted to free the slaves, the fact is is that he did sign the Emancipation Proclamation, which would have been a highly liberal document in his time. People can go against thier type anyway.... remember Bill Clinton signing the Defense of Marriage Act? That was certainly not a liberal move by Clinton, but rather a conservative step (or step back, if you will). It is well known that not all Democrats are as "liberal" as one would think.Also, nationalism is not a conservative value. The myth that democrats and liberals hate their own country is absurd.
Basically, I would have to say that a government managed health plan would be the most expensive, most restrictive, and would provide almost no actual care, given the government's current abilities to provide anything resembling a service.
Xvimbi, if you can't make anything better than a snide, sarcastic, patronizing post, I'll consider my arguement with you over.
I have this corny old-fashioined yearning for peace on earth.