Well, I'm sure a similar consideration would apply the other way, if one was a Swede in the US who wanted to be able to easily return to their homeland after a long period. The fact that you can't easily transfer things like that from one nation to another is a function of the way nation states operate.

That the US taxes non-resident citizens for 10 years probably didn't help your acquaintance's ability to be flexible.

Just on this point:

That the US taxes non-resident citizens for 10 years probably didn't help your acquaintance's ability to be flexible.

As a former ex-pat, and a former tax adviser, I can tell you definitively that there would be no US income tax in this situation. The US provides for a tax credit if the other country has higher rates. Also, there is a reasonably large foreign earned income allowance even if the other jurisdiction has no tax liability.

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:I mentioned illegal immigrants in the context of size and diversity. I wanted to give a sense of how much larger and more complex the US is than Sweden. We have more illegals than they have people. That seems very relevant to me when designing social programs.

Yes, it's relevant. But this doesn't go anywhere towards explaining what the actual effects of the differences in size and diversity actually mean for trying to apply lessons from Sweden (or anywhere else) to the USA.

That's the point I was trying to make - I get that the USA is bigger and that you think it's much more complex (I beg to differ, but there we are), but what do those actually mean in this context?

This is a tougher question for me. What makes sense in New Hampshire is different than what makes sense in South Carolina, as you can see in the US primaries. There is something to be said for a federal system whereby individual States can design the right system for their sensibilities and circumstances. (By the way, what makes sense for Germany is different than what makes sense for Spain, as we are seeing.)

Also, it is much harder for the US to forge a consensus, partially because of our diversity, and partially because of our system of government. Once we do make a decision, it is harder to change it, again because of our system, and also because of the power of entrenched interests. (That last bit may be shared in all countries; I don't know.)

This is just a partial answer to your question. Other views appreciated.

freeman2 wrote:(2) Our current problems come from conservative polices of increasing military spending and cutting taxes and the Financial Crisis (again associated with conservative policies). When Obama is criticized for having large deficits, how exactly would we cut the deficits significantly given Republican opposition to raising taxes and cutting military spending? Let me frame it a different way--what cuts could Obama have done to rein in the deficit with no cuts in military spending and no raising of taxes? Please be specific.

I think Obama should have used his overwhelming majorities in the House of Representatives and the Senate to pass tax increases and defense cuts. One must remember that until Ted Kennedy passed away, there was a filibuster proof Democratic majority in the Senate. Seriously, if Obama isn't wasting his poitical capital on a healthcare bill that is extremely unpopular, do you think Scott Brown wins Ted Kennedy's seat?

Further, even if Scott Brown wins Kennedy's seat, then tax increases and defense cuts can be passed by reconciliation. Therefore, your entire argument falls apart because there is nothing the Republicans could have done to stop it. Particularly if the Democrats, and Obama, hadn't wasted some much political capital healthcare and had packaged it an just another step in the repair the ecomony stimulus.

freeman2 wrote:(2)

Our current problems come from conservative polices of increasing military spending and cutting taxes and the Financial Crisis (again associated with conservative policies). When Obama is criticized for having large deficits, how exactly would we cut the deficits significantly given Republican opposition to raising taxes and cutting military spending? Let me frame it a different way--what cuts could Obama have done to rein in the deficit with no cuts in military spending and no raising of taxes? Please be specific.

archduke

I think Obama should have used his overwhelming majorities in the House of Representatives and the Senate to pass tax increases and defense cuts

A very valid criticism. But one ususally hears from the far left in the US political spectrum.
Do you remember hearing this position trumpeted much in 09 10? By anyone?
Perhaps here, the too frequent political cycles come into play? Where in parliamentary systems, a leader with a majority like Obama had in 08 would have had 4 years to implement change and then perhaps benefit from positive results - with the advantage of time and diminishing memory to lessen the bad feeling their implementation might have produced....
But continually having to deal with congressional members requirements for stumping for the next imminent election tough medicine is harder to implement....

Ray Jay wrote:This is a tougher question for me. What makes sense in New Hampshire is different than what makes sense in South Carolina, as you can see in the US primaries.

Hmmm. That the two states are politically different is not as remarkable as you appear to think in terms of cultural differences. Many countries have regions or locales where a particular political stance will be popular in one and disastrous in another. I'm not sure how that proves that national solutions won't work across all regions.

There is something to be said for a federal system whereby individual States can design the right system for their sensibilities and circumstances. (By the way, what makes sense for Germany is different than what makes sense for Spain, as we are seeing.)

Perhaps. Of course, that assumes that the states are not incredibly closely linked in other ways. Want an example?

In the USA, education standards are set at various levels. Including the State level. So, if Texas, for example, wants to alter the content of textbooks in it's public school system, that is for them, right? It won't affect what other states do, surely?

Except that it does, because of the way that textbook publishing works in the USA. Texas is one of the major markets, and the Texas public system is used as a template for national publishing. Other states are less keen on dictating fact based on political will, and so don't impose the same kind of rules. Which means that a book that conforms in (for example) Ohio may not do in Texas, but one that conforms in Texas can be sold in most of the USA. Publishers will clearly want to sell a more universal product. So, what Texas decides affects what kids in completely different states get taught.

The US has 50 states. But it's essentially simple to move people and things from one to the other, and the economy is basically unitary. Far more so than the EU's (because we really do have a lot of different languages and cultures), but not much less so than particular nations.

Also, it is much harder for the US to forge a consensus, partially because of our diversity, and partially because of our system of government. Once we do make a decision, it is harder to change it, again because of our system, and also because of the power of entrenched interests. (That last bit may be shared in all countries; I don't know.)

Oh, you don't know the half of it.One thing about living in a monarchy whose social system evolved from feudalism via mercantilism and which has an established State Church is that you get to see the odd 'entrenched interest' or two.

This is just a partial answer to your question. Other views appreciated.

Views are fine. I'm asking for a bit more than opinion, though.

rickyp wrote:Do you remember hearing this position trumpeted much in 09 10? By anyone?

No but then he didn't even attempt tp do it did he? Therefore, why would anybody have been mentioning it.

rickyp wrote:Perhaps here, the too frequent political cycles come into play? Where in parliamentary systems, a leader with a majority like Obama had in 08 would have had 4 years to implement change and then perhaps benefit from positive results - with the advantage of time and diminishing memory to lessen the bad feeling their implementation might have produced....
But continually having to deal with congressional members requirements for stumping for the next imminent election tough medicine is harder to implement....

Personally, I think this is a load of crap argument as well. If raising taxes on the wealthy and cutting defense spending is as popular as you repeated assert the poll seem to show, then Congressman would have been able to run on this as a positive. Especially if the Demcrats hadn't wasted some much political capital on an extremely unpopular law (Obamacare) and resorted to such a draconian measure to pass it. Remember, absent the Obamacare debacle, the Democrats are in a much stronger position in 2010.

Basically though, my point that Freeman's assertion is Obama couldn't do it because of Republican obstructionism is a load of carp.

arch

Basically though, my point that Freeman's assertion is Obama couldn't do it because of Republican obstructionism is a load of carp

I don't know about a load of crap, but I agree that he could and should have made more of an effort to address this issue when he had majorities..
Sometimes looking back with 20/20 hindsight is a little unfair. I've said, for instance that Reagan was responsible for failing to bring in balanced budgets because of tax cuts. Now, the first time he tried it, brought in huge tax cuts, he immediatly recognized the deficit problem and brought taxes back up..... Never enough over his administration, but he did react.
So I'd never criticize Reagan for the initial failure ....only not learning from the error. And his successors never learnt as well...
I'd agree that Obama failed in addressing taxes in the first two years. In the course of things he increased the debt needlessly a couple of points thru these failings.
But the greater failure is when major lessons from history aren't learnt.
Repeating the mistakes of deregulation and poor oversight of the financial industries from 1920's and from the S&L failing in 89(?) largely brought about the financial crash. And yet there are politicians running for President today still espousing deregulation of the financial industry. (Rolling back Dodd Frank)
Could we also admit that by now we've learned that tax cuts don't always pay for themselves and that talking tax cuts at a time when tax rates are the lowest since 1945 at the same time as complaining about the debt is a symptom of cognitive dissonance?

Archduke, the problem is that while congresscritters will look to do what's popular, they are also largely rich themselves, and heavily backed by the rich. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas (would the US expression be Thanksgiving?) even if they want people to be happy.

So perhaps the argument is 'crap', but perhaps there's more to it. Both sides in Congress have been playing up obstructionist tactics over the past few decades, and they've been learning from each other. Yes, the Democrats burned a lot of goodwill on healthcare (not because the Republicans were receptive to the reforms), but there was a lot of rancour already building.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... ml?hpid=z3

Interesting article about the use of "the myth of europe" by conservative politiicans in todays Washington Post.

Some time ago...

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:]You are right about Christianity. People are called to care for the poor. Notice the word, please. I said people. Show me a verse in the Bible where it says the government should take care of the poor, and I will be quite surprised. It is not there.

To paraphrase Mitt Romney "government is people, my friend".

But you do know which 'people' are 'called to' help the poor the most? The rich.

The question I was answering was whether there's anywhere in the bible that says that the government should do stuff to help the poor. The only way that a government could do this would be to mandate others to do so either directly or via itself.

I saw today a link to this - http://www.sojo.net/blogs/2012/01/11/ga ... bout-bible which was a response to a Republican one time Presidential candidate:

Bauer claims, “But nowhere in the Bible are we told that government should take one man's money by force of law and give it to another man.”

This is false.

Both the Year of Jubilee (when all debts were forgiven, slaves released and land returned to its original owners and related to the “sabbatical” year) and “gleaning” laws (mandate to leave grapes or grain on the vines or in the field for the poor to collect) are forms of government mandated redistribution of wealth.

They were laws concerned with justice not encouragements to charity.

To read up on gleaning you can flip to Leviticus 19:9; 23:22, Deuteronomy 24:19-21 or the story of Ruth and Boaz in Ruth chapter 2. To read up on Jubilee and “sabbatical” years I recommend Leviticus 25 and then later scriptural references of Isaiah 61 and Luke 4.

There are Biblical scholars who will argue that it is not clear if the Year of Jubilee was ever actually put into practice. Therefore, Christians today shouldn’t practice it or it’s importance should be diminished.

But, I don’t buy that.

Prophets regularly criticized rulers for denying justice to the poor and oppressed. If you read Isaiah and Amos you will clearly see that God wasn’t happy that His people weren’t doing a better job making sure that those in need were taken care of.

Others argue that it’s dangerous to try and directly apply Old Testament laws written for an ancient agrarian society to our current government system and economic milieu.

I agree.

But, that doesn’t mean we throw away the values behind Jubilee and gleaning. Both are intended to provide opportunity for those at the bottom, need help or have come upon hard times. Today, we try and figure out public policy solutions to achieve similar ends.

danivon wrote:Archduke, the problem is that while congresscritters will look to do what's popular, they are also largely rich themselves, and heavily backed by the rich.{snip} Yes, the Democrats burned a lot of goodwill on healthcare (not because the Republicans were receptive to the reforms), but there was a lot of rancour already building.

But Democrats aren't supposed to care about that. After all they are the party of the people. That is basically Freeman's argument. That Obama and the Democrats didn't raise taxes or cut the defense budget like they wanted to because of the obstructionist Republicans.

That position is a load of crap. They could have done so anytime they wanted to in the first 2 years of his Presidency. It wasn't until after they had lost the support of the general population on the healthcare debacle that the Democrat's shifted focus to trying to raise taxes. You know, after they knew they would have no chance of getting it passed. If the Democrats had been serious about ending the Bush tax cuts and cutting defense spending, they would have been able to do it. Especially, if they hadn't wasted time and political capital on the healthcare debacle.

I think Archduke has a point but ultimately it serves to obscure the truth. In other words, if we accept what the Archduke says again it is the Democrats/liberals who are just as much as fault for the deficits as Republcians and Obama in particular can be criticized for not reducing the deficits when he clearly had the power to do so....So let's put everything in its proper context. First, I think it is absolutely clear that no Democratic president would have passed the Bush Tax cuts. Secondly, it is absolutely clear that no Democratic president would have invaded Iraq, meaning that our defense budgets would not have skyrocketed if Bush had not been president. And I also thinki it is clear that once tax cuts are done and military spending is increased it is hard to roll back those tax cuts and military spending.

So clearly Republicans were primarily responsible for giving us this deficit problem. And after they got us into this problem, they still were basically 100% opposed to raising taxes or cutting military spending, the only real means of reducing the deficit. Yet the Archduke says the president should have raised taxes (in the midst of a severe recession) and done the politically risky move of cutting military spending, allowing the Republicans to get us into the budgetary mess and then attack the president for raising taxes and cutting military spending (and risking our national security)

So Archduke perhaps you're right that the president could have raised taxes and cut military spending--I am not certain of that because I don't know that he could have kept Democrats in line to do those things given the political risks to the Democratic Party. Even if he could have done it, politically it would have meant he was a one-term president. And why, given that it was the Republicans' fault in the first place

should Obama and the Democrats taken the political shots for trying to solve the deficit when the Republicans refused en masse to do what needed to be done to resolve the deficits? Yes, Archduke, you make a point that it was theorectically possible for Obama to cut the deficit, but it was not politically feasible, and you have not shown that Democrats are equally as fault for the deficits as the Republicans have been. Then the next thing the Republicans do is imply well it is really Socialy Security and Medicare that are the real budgetary problems--no, that't not true. You, the Republicans, cut taxes and vastly increased military spending. And you refuse to cancel those things. And you want to have the Democrats to take the political heat for doing so. That takes some chutzpah!

The problem with your entire point though freeman is that Brad has posted links showing that just about every President since WWII has run deficits for the majority of their Presidency's. Therefore, it is not just a Republican thing.

The difference is what they run the deficit on. Republicans tend to run deficits by tax cuts and military spending. However, Demcrats do it by increasing domestic spending without comparable revenue increases. A perfect example is my home state. We just spent 8 years of a Democratic Governor who increased the state budget by 40% but didn't increase taxes by 40%. Therefore, we are now facing a $3B deficit. And we are one of the states in better financial situation. Want to talk abotu New Jersey and their $10B Budget hole.

My point being, those deficits would have been there whether it was Bush or Gore as President. Gore would have just run the deficit up on different spending issues.