American Poor still better then European

[Murdoch]

The US is the most populated country on that list and one of the fastest growing. It's the only nation on there with any kind of signifigant population growth or a population above 100 million. I'd say thats fairly impressive.

The only reason the US population is growing is due to immigration. White boys like you and me are becoming the minority. Don't believe me? How many immigrants come to the US every year? Millions (I'll quote a source when you quote a source first)
How many of your suburban friends come from families of more the 2.1 children, the level needed for replacement? Not many I bet. Hell, I'm an only child, and most of my friends only have one sibling at best.

Western Europe and Japan are both shrinking becuase they are not replacing their people, due to their prosperity. The US would be in the same boat but that immigration artificially infltes our population gowth rates. I saw this on Frontline last month.

 

[John Uskglass]

The only reason the US population is growing is due to immigration. White boys like you and me are becoming the minority. Don't believe me? How many immigrants come to the US every year? Millions (I'll quote a source when you quote a source first)
How many of your suburban friends come from families of more the 2.1 children, the level needed for replacement? Not many I bet. Hell, I'm an only child, and most of my friends only have one sibling at best.

I know alot of Moromons, thus the number is not appropriate. But yeah, more seem too.

Western Europe and Japan are both shrinking becuase they are not replacing their people, due to their prosperity. The US would be in the same boat but that immigration artificially infltes our population gowth rates. I saw this on Frontline last month.

Largely true. However, we are still a huge country, about the size of the EU when the Euro just came around.

 

[Big T]

I'm fairly closely related to her husband, so don't expect me to be to hostile of her.

Her husband is a joke, and somebody should have killed her with a rusty pick axe.

Simiar to the way people on welfare get food-vouchers & stamps. Though some non-essential surguries are sometimes not had (for cleft pallets for instance).

Cleft palettes? Non- Essential?
You're not seriously suggesting that you can go without treatment for that are you?

 

[John Uskglass]

Her husband is a joke, and somebody should have killed her with a rusty pick axe.

I've never understood why the British hate her so much. I remember an add during the last PM election with the Torrie canidate with Thatcher's hair.

Cleft palettes? Non- Essential?
You're not seriously suggesting that you can go without treatment for that are you?

I had a teacher (who was I assumed in it for the money, she was awful) with a cleft pallet.

Bad example maybe, I don't know much about it.

 

[Brother None]

I'm fairly closely related to her husband, so don't expect me to be to hostile of her. Then again, her reformation of the government from it's Sloggoth like all encompasing all-easting mess.

I care nothing for your relations with her husband, it takes nothing away from the fact that she's the main person responsible for the shithole England is in.

That was before the Vietnam era, when they where both fairly right wing and both where baisically diffirent right wing parties.

However, times have changed, and while the Democratic party is closer to say the Torrie or the Blair Labour party, it's still the Leftist party here. And you seem to think of the Democratic party as the party of Southerners who try to be further to the right then the Republicans and not of the commies in San Dieago or Vermont.

Dude, the Tories are one of the most right-wing parties here, and indeed they resemble the Democrats. You Americans simply aren't used to a more diverse democratic system, sue the Democrats are the Leftist party over there, but they don't compare to the lefty parties here.

Simiar to the way people on welfare get food-vouchers & stamps. Though some non-essential surguries are sometimes not had (for cleft pallets for instance).

Dental stamps? Explain.

The US is the most populated country on that list and one of the fastest growing. It's the only nation on there with any kind of signifigant population growth or a population above 100 million. I'd say thats fairly impressive.

Really? How is population growth relevant to anything? Population growth can have a number of causes, extreme poverty amongst them (see China or the African countries). So what're you trying to argue?

I've never understood why the British hate her so much. I remember an add during the last PM election with the Torrie canidate with Thatcher's hair.

Geee, maybe because she turned their once-proud nation into a dreghole?

 

[John Uskglass]

I care nothing for your relations with her husband, it takes nothing away from the fact that she's the main person responsible for the shithole England is in.

I don't know how you could possibly justify that. In the 1970's, everyone belived that GB would be the first Industrialized nation to go back into developing mode. Socialism had killed the Empire, killed it's prestige and it's economy, not to mention the massive, overbreaing welfare state that she abolished. Heck, Mr. Blair even gives her credit for that.

She was egotistical and somewhat authoritarian......but if Britan is as powerful as any nation in Europe and in the top 3 in the world it's because of her.

Dude, the Tories are one of the most right-wing parties here, and indeed they resemble the Democrats. You Americans simply aren't used to a more diverse democratic system, sue the Democrats are the Leftist party over there, but they don't compare to the lefty parties here.

America does'nt have a Socialist tradition. I don't personally see that as a bad thing, as I tend to see Socialism come hand in hand with massive welfare states and failing economies like Schroder or the old Labour party.

Dental stamps? Explain.

Gher...poor people in America don't have it that bad. Okay? Welfare is still a bloated beast despite the good Clinton did, and people get basic medical care. This is'nt Somalia.

Really? How is population growth relevant to anything? Population growth can have a number of causes, extreme poverty amongst them (see China or the African countries). So what're you trying to argue?

America is a massive nation. If you combined all of the EU at the time of the adoption of the Euro, do you think that the poor have it better here or there, with the poverty in Portugal, Sicily and Greece?

 

[Brother None]

I don't know how you could possibly justify that. In the 1970's, everyone belived that GB would be the first Industrialized nation to go back into developing mode. Socialism had killed the Empire, killed it's prestige and it's economy, not to mention the massive, overbreaing welfare state that she abolished. Heck, Mr. Blair even gives her credit for that.

She was egotistical and somewhat authoritarian......but if Britan is as powerful as any nation in Europe and in the top 3 in the world it's because of her.

And there you go off again, talking about economic matters.

I don't give a shit how much she pumped up the economy of GB, the quality of the lives of the people living there has decreased (or rather, not increased as much as it should have)

Gher...poor people in America don't have it that bad. Okay? Welfare is still a bloated beast despite the good Clinton did, and people get basic medical care. This is'nt Somalia.

No it isn't, but you still have 8 million uninsured people running around. Doesn't that even bother you one bit? And don't go telling me all those people get basic dental or medical treatment, you know that's bull.

America is a massive nation. If you combined all of the EU at the time of the adoption of the Euro, do you think that the poor have it better here or there, with the poverty in Portugal, Sicily and Greece?

Yes, but the EU isn't run by one government, now is it? You can hardly hold Belgium responsible for the state of Portugal, now can you?

 

[Big T]

...she's the main person responsible for the shithole England is in.

Dude, Great Britain/The UK. Not just England. She skullfucked the Welsh moreso than the English.

Heck, Mr. Blair even gives her credit for that.

Really? I'd be surprised to see either of the two biggest parties admit the other could tie it's own shoelaces, let alone anything else. Linky?

......but if Britan is as powerful as any nation in Europe and in the top 3 in the world it's because of her.

It doesn't count if you drive half the population to the breadline.

America does'nt have a Socialist tradition. I don't personally see that as a bad thing, as I tend to see Socialism come hand in hand with massive welfare states and failing economies like Schroder or the old Labour party.

That's because you are a ... Meh, I will not finish this sentance. Left does not equal "Evil Commie", no matter how much the US administration since 1917 (? Russian Revolution, my British education fails me here, another thing Thatcher destroyed) would like you to believe.

 

[John Uskglass]

And there you go off again, talking about economic matters.

I don't give a shit how much she pumped up the economy of GB, the quality of the lives of the people living there has decreased (or rather, not increased as much as it should have)

No, it did'nt. Most of the decline in lifestyle came from the old Labout part'y 80% TAXES t3h WIN days

No it isn't, but you still have 8 million uninsured people running around. Doesn't that even bother you one bit? And don't go telling me all those people get basic dental or medical treatment, you know that's bull.

Alot of people get important free medical care. If a guy comes in shit, he'll get care anywhere outside of Lakeforest.

It does bother me, actually, but then again, the Canadian system is alot worse.

Yes, but the EU isn't run by one government, now is it? You can hardly hold Belgium responsible for the state of Portugal, now can you?

No-but remember, this is a truly massive nation, and you can't really compare it to anybody in it's area because of it's size.

Dude, Great Britain/The UK. Not just England. She skullfucked the Welsh moreso than the English.

Yep.

Really? I'd be surprised to see either of the two biggest parties admit the other could tie it's own shoelaces, let alone anything else. Linky?

He's continued her economic policies. I don't think it gets more clear cut then that.

It doesn't count if you drive half the population to the breadline.

How so? Britan's economy was saved if anything by the end of old Labour.

That's because you are a ... Meh, I will not finish this sentance. Left does not equal "Evil Commie", no matter how much the US administration since 1917 (? Russian Revolution, my British education fails me here, another thing Thatcher destroyed) would like you to believe.

Heartless fascist?
I know it does'nt equal Evil Commie, but I don't see Socialism doing any good outside of moderating some of Capitalism's bad sides. Look at Quebec, or old Labour, or any other nation outside of Scandanavia.

American's stopped liking Socialism around the time of the Red Scare when it was Us vs. Them. Before then it was pretty much in vouge, with even a VP being a communist for a while under FDR.

 

[MrMarcus]

No it isn't, but you still have 8 million uninsured people running around. Doesn't that even bother you one bit? And don't go telling me all those people get basic dental or medical treatment, you know that's bull.

HA! That's funny.

I'm 30, in reasonably good health, never smoked or done any illicit substances. Health insurance would cost me $218 per month.

That's almost as much as I pay for rent.

 

[Jebus]

I'm 30, in reasonably good health, never smoked or done any illicit substances. Health insurance would cost me $218 per month.

That's almost as much as I pay for rent.

My father's 53, he has diabetes, smoked three pack of cigarettes a day untill he was 45, is overweight, is a policeman (=high-risk job); and he only pays €75 a month to insure our family of three, including hospitalisation insurance.

There you have it.

 

[Brother None]

No, it did'nt. Most of the decline in lifestyle came from the old Labout part'y 80% TAXES t3h WIN days

Really? Then explain to me why it was under Thatcher, and not under labour, that the quality of life dropped? Explain to me why, exactly, the schooling and healthcare and public services were destroyed under Thatcher and not under old Labour?

What you don't seem to understand is that these are seperate things. There's the economy, and there's quality of life. Thatcher chose to save the economy at the cost of quality of life. A good choice? Hardly.

Alot of people get important free medical care. If a guy comes in shit, he'll get care anywhere outside of Lakeforest.

It does bother me, actually, but then again, the Canadian system is alot worse.

Yes, but Canada sucks, that's not the point. The European wellfare systems are general by far superior. The only uninsured people in the Netherlands are our drug-addicted population, even unemployed and often even homeless people have some form of insurance.

The problem is one in perspective. You see economy as something more important than quality of life. I do not. I would never sacrifice quality of lfie for a strong economy.

No-but remember, this is a truly massive nation, and you can't really compare it to anybody in it's area because of it's size.

Why? It's just a difference in scale, y'know. Germany is a lot bigger than the Netherlands, yet they can still be compared, except for some factors (like population density)

Dude, Great Britain/The UK. Not just England. She skullfucked the Welsh moreso than the English.

Sorry. A Scot reminded me of this before...

Man, that guy was unstoppable once he started on "that evil witch"

He's continued her economic policies. I don't think it gets more clear cut then that.

....Dude, that's not the same. Blair abhors her social policy as much as anyone

Her saving the country economically does not undo the enormous damage she's done.

How so? Britan's economy was saved if anything by the end of old Labour.

What's the point of saving the economy if the quality of life decreases? Britain is only rich on paper.

I know it does'nt equal Evil Commie, but I don't see Socialism doing any good outside of moderating some of Capitalism's bad sides. Look at Quebec, or old Labour, or any other nation outside of Scandanavia.

Like Germany or the Netherlands? Both of whom have fared a lot better, historically, under socialist governments than under neo-liberals? Look at the Netherlands now, it's going to shit under the neo-liberal Balkenende II, while it had some of it's greatest period pre-(neo liberal)Paars I.

Capitalism is also not a political mode, while social democracy is.

Look, there are no big Socialist parties left in the West, let that much be clear. All old Socialist parties that're still big are Social Democrats. Social Democracy has already proven itself to work a lot better than the American neo-Liberalism in Europe.

American's stopped liking Socialism around the time of the Red Scare when it was Us vs. Them. Before then it was pretty much in vouge, with even a VP being a communist for a while under FDR.

Aye, FDR, the greatest president you ever had, and the great inventor of the Welfare State. Saved your economy, saved your butt, and all you can say about him is that he was the Red man in the White House.

And don't dare reply about the New Deal unless you manage to disprove welsh's earlier arguments about it.

(oh, by the way, just another reminder, JF Kennedy was a terrible war-mongering president. Just so you know)

HA! That's funny.

I'm 30, in reasonably good health, never smoked or done any illicit substances. Health insurance would cost me $218 per month.

That's almost as much as I pay for rent.

Holy shit. Y'know your health doesn't really count for shit for how expensive your insurance is here, we'd consider that discriminatory. Yes, it counts for something, but very little.

Your insurance is determined by your income. Depending on your income, in your situation, you'd pay either 30 EUR a month for public health insurance, or about 120 EUR for private health insurance. And that's with the "enormous increases in public costs" we've had lately, a lot of Dutch consider these costs to be monstrously high.

And that's including full dental.

220 is quite a lot.

Not a lot for rent, tho', but I can only compare to Holland, and rents here are incredibly high, but that's an effect of over-population, and can't be put in the hands of any policy. What kind of living arrangements are we talking about, tho'?

 

[John Uskglass]

Really? Then explain to me why it was under Thatcher, and not under labour, that the quality of life dropped? Explain to me why, exactly, the schooling and healthcare and public services were destroyed under Thatcher and not under old Labour?

What you don't seem to understand is that these are seperate things. There's the economy, and there's quality of life. Thatcher chose to save the economy at the cost of quality of life. A good choice? Hardly.

That's crap. I don't think you understand just how bad the British economy was before Thatcher. It was fairly quickly going back into developing nation status.

Yes, but Canada sucks, that's not the point. The European wellfare systems are general by far superior. The only uninsured people in the Netherlands are our drug-addicted population, even unemployed and often even homeless people have some form of insurance.

The problem is one in perspective. You see economy as something more important than quality of life. I do not. I would never sacrifice quality of lfie for a strong economy.

I think that generally one comes in hand with the other, and that both are important, but yes, I belive economy to be most important, as it is the only thing between the quality of life and Schroder's Germany like collapse.

Why? It's just a difference in scale, y'know. Germany is a lot bigger than the Netherlands, yet they can still be compared, except for some factors (like population density)

America is an extremely diverse place. I don't think you get that. IF you where to combine Poland, hungary, Germany, Denmark, Austria and the Netherlands you'd have a similar population, but it would have alot of the problems America has.

Sorry. A Scot reminded me of this before...

Man, that guy was unstoppable once he started on "that evil witch"

Meh, most the Welshies I know are Communists, thus I tend not to listen to anything they say on politics.

....Dude, that's not the same. Blair abhors her social policy as much as anyone

Her saving the country economically does not undo the enormous damage she's done.

That's bullshit. What Thatcher did for the economy was entirely nessicary as it was on the verge of collapsing into the abyss. She saved Britan from the Old Labour's economic policies, even if her social policy was not the most popular or helpful.

What's the point of saving the economy if the quality of life decreases? Britain is only rich on paper.

Again, economy is important to sustain a good quality of life. Which is why Germany is going to collapse under Schroder's economic policies, and why France is going to become stagnant with the 35 hour rule.

Strong economies are the basis of quality of life. The best economy is not always the best quality of life, but the two are fundementally linked.

Like Germany or the Netherlands? Both of whom have fared a lot better, historically, under socialist governments than under neo-liberals? Look at the Netherlands now, it's going to shit under the neo-liberal Balkenende II, while it had some of it's greatest period pre-(neo liberal)Paars I.

Capitalism is also not a political mode, while social democracy is.

Look, there are no big Socialist parties left in the West, let that much be clear. All old Socialist parties that're still big are Social Democrats. Social Democracy has already proven itself to work a lot better than the American neo-Liberalism in Europe.

Chirac is a conervative....would you call him neo-liberal?

Anyway, I still see Germany collapsing under it's own welfare state with catastrophic unemployment and a grey population the size of the Arab's world babie population and the Parisian mayor's disasterous policies......
I don't think Neo Liberalism (or Libertarianism as we call it over here) works the best in Europe, but then again I don't think modern Social Democracy works the best either. Frankly, the only one I have any affinity too is the Christian Democrats.

Aye, FDR, the greatest president you ever had, and the great inventor of the Welfare State. Saved your economy, saved your butt, and all you can say about him is that he was the Red man in the White House.

And don't dare reply about the New Deal unless you manage to disprove welsh's earlier arguments about it.

(oh, by the way, just another reminder, JF Kennedy was a terrible war-mongering president. Just so you know)

He was'nt the best. He was a great president, but his uncle was IMHO the best, or maybe Lincoln.

He was a terrific president, and many of his social reforms where nessicary for the time, and his understanding that America must do everything it can to help the allies was important......but I prefer Teddy and Abraham.

And I agree with you 110% on JFK. Most overrated leader of a nation of the 20th century.

 

[MrMarcus]

Holy shit. Y'know your health doesn't really count for shit for how expensive your insurance is here, we'd consider that discriminatory. Yes, it counts for something, but very little.

Here it's standard practice and I don't think any challenge to it has made it very far.

Your insurance is determined by your income. Depending on your income, in your situation, you'd pay either 30 EUR a month for public health insurance, or about 120 EUR for private health insurance. And that's with the "enormous increases in public costs" we've had lately, a lot of Dutch consider these costs to be monstrously high.

There are "free clinics" that work off of donations but you have to be under a certain maximum income level to even be considered for treatment, and even so they are usually so crowded the few days they're open it isn't worth bothering.

Doesn't matter because I make too much for it anyways at $20k/year.

220 is quite a lot.

Not a lot for rent, tho', but I can only compare to Holland, and rents here are incredibly high, but that's an effect of over-population, and can't be put in the hands of any policy. What kind of living arrangements are we talking about, tho'?

Sharing a house with four other people (total rent $1250). Doesn't count any utilities or perks of any sort.

 

[Murdoch]

My father's 53, he has diabetes, smoked three pack of cigarettes a day untill he was 45, is overweight, is a policeman (=high-risk job); and he only pays €75 a month to insure our family of three, including hospitalisation insurance.

There you have it.

There you don't have it. It's easy to compare direct costs, but what about the hidden costs asscoiated with your taxes? I bet in the final analysis it costs just as much for your father's treatment in Belgium as it would in the US, the difference is that your costs are hidden in higher taxes and socialized medicine.

Any debate of this nature that takes into account real money will get mired in this sort of pitfall. Only by talking in abstraction like Kharn (or huge dick, whatever), and CCR are can you debate this issue well.

 

[Brother None]

That's crap. I don't think you understand just how bad the British economy was before Thatcher. It was fairly quickly going back into developing nation status.

Prove it.

America is an extremely diverse place. I don't think you get that. IF you where to combine Poland, hungary, Germany, Denmark, Austria and the Netherlands you'd have a similar population, but it would have alot of the problems America has.

Hmmm, point taken.

Meh, most the Welshies I know are Communists, thus I tend not to listen to anything they say on politics.

Ahahahaha!

Sometimes you can be a real moron, CC.

Funny, but a moron

That's bullshit. What Thatcher did for the economy was entirely nessicary as it was on the verge of collapsing into the abyss. She saved Britan from the Old Labour's economic policies, even if her social policy was not the most popular or helpful.

Are you saying it was impossible to save the UK from economic collapse without turning their social system to shit?

Look, deflating a bloated wellfare state is no problem, but the way Thatcher did it wasn't the best. Even the much-despite Dutch Paars I/II way of deflating the wellfare state, which hurt it as a total and privatised too many companies, is better than that of Thatcher.

Strong economies are the basis of quality of life. The best economy is not always the best quality of life, but the two are fundementally linked.

Yeah, that's true. But you go off on a strange foot and keep on measuring "wealth of a nation" by the strength of their economy. Go back to my original post in this thread and read my opinion on that kind of measuring of wealth.

Chirac is a conervative....would you call him neo-liberal?

If the world would be divided neo-liberal and democratic socialist, he would fall under neo-liberals.

But the world is not, Chirac is a conservatist, hence he's neither neo-liberal or social democrat.

Anyway, I still see Germany collapsing under it's own welfare state with catastrophic unemployment and a grey population the size of the Arab's world babie population and the Parisian mayor's disasterous policies......

Yes, you've mentioned this several times, but you've shown no proof. Germany has been a booming nation under various social democrat governments in its history, same for much of Western Europe.

Yes, we're still in a lagging economic crisis here. Remember Europe always walks in America's wake. The crisis started with you, then it moved over here. Once the crisis stops on your side, it'll stop here. It's unlikely, tho' possible, that the crisi will stop here sooner. But I'm not bettin' on it.

I see no reason for Germany to collapse. Theyre not the ones with the 1 trillion dollar debt

I don't think Neo Liberalism (or Libertarianism as we call it over here) works the best in Europe, but then again I don't think modern Social Democracy works the best either. Frankly, the only one I have any affinity too is the Christian Democrats.

Christian Democrats are fine rulers, and have run several countries here in good ways, but Christian Democrats sway around too much. In the Rhineland system, they're usually allied to either a rightwing neo-liberal party or a left-wing social democrat.

Christian Democrats + Neo-Liberals = teh suck, country goes to shit

Christian Democrats + Social Democrats = teh cool, country does well

Social Democrats alone = bye-bye nation

Neo-Liberals alone = bye-bye nation pt. 2

The Rhineland model (Benelux and Germany have it) works well as a balancer of power in this sense, since countries constantly switch between powerblocks and keep a good balance in the way they're run. If a country needs a boost, or needs to stop it's wellfare state, like the Netherlands at the start of the 90's, some neo-liberal party join the alliance and does so...They could also stay too long tho', like now, which is teh suck.

There are "free clinics" that work off of donations but you have to be under a certain maximum income level to even be considered for treatment, and even so they are usually so crowded the few days they're open it isn't worth bothering.

Typical. Walk-in clinics here are busy, but it generally doesn't take a day to get some help. They only offer treatment on a number of things, tho', like SOAs, or critical injuries. Being insured = better.

Sharing a house with four other people (total rent $1250). Doesn't count any utilities or perks of any sort

's cheaper than Holland, but that doesn't surprise me. Rents are insane here.

Kharn (or huge dick, whatever)

Respect the name of my ancestors,

 

[Jebus]

There you don't have it. It's easy to compare direct costs, but what about the hidden costs asscoiated with your taxes? I bet in the final analysis it costs just as much for your father's treatment in Belgium as it would in the US, the difference is that your costs are hidden in higher taxes and socialized medicine.

That's entirely the point of our welfare state. Everybody pays along for social security, and though everybody pays a lot, everybody is also sure they'll get their medical, dental or hospitalisation aid whenever they need it.
And actually, considering our families medical history, it might very well be possible he's gotten more money back from the state than he has payed them...

 

[Bhurak]

I see no reason for Germany to collapse. Theyre not the ones with the 1 trillion dollar debt

Isn;t it around 6-7 trillion?

B

 

[Sander]

That's entirely the point of our welfare state. Everybody pays along for social security, and though everybody pays a lot, everybody is also sure they'll get their medical, dental or hospitalisation aid whenever they need it.
And actually, considering our families medical history, it might very well be possible he's gotten more money back from the state than he has payed them...

The point's a bit more than that, as well. It's about forcing everyone to be aware of their fellow human-being, or at least to force everyone to help them out.
And also, it's about the principle of levelling everyone's incomes. The socialist ideal.

 

[Murdoch]

That's entirely the point of our welfare state. Everybody pays along for social security, and though everybody pays a lot, everybody is also sure they'll get their medical, dental or hospitalisation aid whenever they need it.
And actually, considering our families medical history, it might very well be possible he's gotten more money back from the state than he has payed them...

Fine, fine, just don't neglect the hidden costs when you compare the cost of healthcare between continents (and systems), that's my point.