danivon wrote:Why it can't work in the USA needs more work than just 'bigger population' or 'more brown people'.

Wow that's quite ignorant. I call Godwin.

Russ, I agree with the first statement...not necessarily the later.

I believe I am right when I say that Danivon is quite clueless about American culture. If I am correct, Ray Jay's comment about the US being more diverse isn't about color or ethnicity, though it is a part of it, but about the fact that cultures vary across the land in multiple ways. Danivon reminds me of the old stereotype of a guy saying, "I'm not racist, I have a black friend."

Danivon, You know some Americans? Good for you. Your girlfriend spent some time here? Good for her. But that's the point. You've got 2 or 3 pieces of a 1,000 piece puzzle.

It would be nescience if you weren't so arrogant about the 2 pieces you have. However, since you make such claims, it makes you ignorant.

As harsh as that tone is, I don't consider you to be 'dumb' or an 'idiot'. I wouldn't bother engaging you if I did. That distinction goes to another unnamed poster. I'm just saying that you think you know much more than you actually do.

Archduke Russell John wrote:

danivon wrote:Why it can't work in the USA needs more work than just 'bigger population' or 'more brown people'.

Wow that's quite ignorant. I call Godwin.

A 'Godwin' is a comparison to the Nazis. I dıd no such thing. The comparison on homogeneity or on immigration, between the demographics of the two countries, is what seemed a bit glib. Especially from RJ. What are the actual differences, and why do they render lessons from Sweden useless? Because it looks like that blinkered American Exceptionalism thing to me.

Guapo - calm down dear. It's not like I used a term like 'ghetto bunny', is it?

Ray Jay wrote:more brown people? Why should I respond to that?

Because there was more to my post than that? I was trying (ham-fistedly perhaps) to highlight the simplistic level of your objection. When you think about 'illegal immigrant', what do you think of? What is the 'diversity' in the USA largely based on? I was oversimplifying an oversimplification.

So, ignoring the bit of my response you don't like, can you accept that just showing a difference between the USA and Sweden is not sufficient to explain why that difference is enough to negate it as an example? You already used the 'Greece' response, now you move on to the 'America is just different' response. Neither are reasons to ignore Sweden without a lot more explanation.

Sure, ricky can be annoying. But he's not as automatically wrong as you guys like to think.

ray

But the notion that since something works in a relatively homogenous country of 10 million people it will certainly work in this incredibly diverse country (which has more illegal immigrants than Sweden has citizens) is not credible.

Gee, what ever happened to American exceptionalism... Largest economy, highest standard of living....all that ....
For 30 years we've been told that European Socialism was a road to ruin... Based on those Nostrums Sweden should be bankrupt.... So should Germany... And yet....the results show differently..

And the point really is that fiscal responsibility can be achieved with a social democratic nation. That social programs don't have to cause unmanageable debt.
Fact is the US for 34 years managed much higher debt then it currently has and paid it down and , expanded social programs and funded an active military . 34 years of almost constant surpluses.... The social programs didn't change all of a sudden, Just suddenty the respect for fiscal responsibility. And of a suddenappeared the kind of magical thinking that ignores history or evidence for belief.
I would challenge you to show how social security has failed in its original goals. Havn't senior citizens been enjoying a modicum of security in their old age since its inception? An improved life from the uncertainty, ill health and misery that many many working class, and even middle class seniors often endured? If its taken away tomorrow as unaffordable will those being supported suddenly find a way to maintain themselves as they do now?
Isn't that goal worth achieving? And if so, why is it that some nations can do this without bankrupting the nation ... Why is it that the US could as well for so long? Its simple. The respect for fiscal responsibility disappeared in about 1980. COnservatives spouted that "We can all have lower taxes, and not worry about ballooning deficits" ,NOr for that matter, soaring trade deficits and a shift in wealth from the middle class to foreign corporations and an elite group of wealthy.
It was all going to work out ....because tax cuts always pay for themselves and because the US had a unique nature that served to propel it forward to its destiny.
And now, somehow this becomes, yeah sure Sweden can do that but they're different.... Its tougher for us.
Such whiners.

danivon wrote:A 'Godwin' is a comparison to the Nazis. I dıd no such thing.

really because it looks like an attempt to forestall a discussion by refering to the otherside as a racist. I always thought that was part of Godwin as well. Either way,it is still ignorant.

Well hey, if it's an attempt to 'forestall' discussion, why are you getting sidetracked by it? If that were ny intent, then it worked.

but it was not my intent (and the definition of Godwin's Law are more specific). It's not actually racist to say that Sweden and the USA are different becuase they have dofferent proportions of immigrants. But it is simplistic to lstate that this difference alone leads to other differences without more explanation.

so, when we see a proper explanation of why America can't learn anything from Sweden, we can continue. Right?

danivon wrote:It's not actually racist to say that Sweden and the USA are different becuase they have dofferent proportions of immigrants.

Well, I didn't say you were being racist. I said you were attempting to imply that RJ was being racist your reference to little brown brothers.

And that is an incredibly ignorant comment and totally beneath you.

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:more brown people? Why should I respond to that?

Because there was more to my post than that? I was trying (ham-fistedly perhaps) to highlight the simplistic level of your objection. When you think about 'illegal immigrant', what do you think of? What is the 'diversity' in the USA largely based on? I was oversimplifying an oversimplification.

Instead of walking it back a bit, why don't you just apologize? You were out of line. It's not the end of the world, but just admit it.

I love this country, and especially its diversity. It's our richness and I don't envy Europe or Sweden one bit. Ethnic group is more than race; we have every type of European, Hispanic, Middleastern, Asian, black, etc. It's great. Have I missed anyone?

However, it also means that we are more complex. We don't all speak the same language. We don't all have the same cultural expectations for hard work or using benefits. We have a long legacy of slavery and segregation. None of this is code for racism. This is just describing what America is.

I want to fully integrate this country as the land of opportunity based on hard work, and not a land of opportunity based on social programs. That's the dream over here. If you and Ricky dream of a different society, that’s fine. Go build it.

By the way, all ethnic and racial groups have good and bad, hard workers, and lazy people, some with high moral standards, and others without. Some who contribute to the greater good, and others who will take whatever they can get regardless of fairness or law. And some who just need help because they can't fend for themselves.

That being true, it is also true that cultures vary widely. Germans are known for precision, and Brits are known for stiff upper lips. Italians enjoy life and Israelis like to argue. There’s some truth to all of that, and yet every culture has every type. What works for Sweden may not work for the U.S. It isn’t working for Greece, Spain, or Portugal.

Danivon:

So, ignoring the bit of my response you don't like, can you accept that just showing a difference between the USA and Sweden is not sufficient to explain why that difference is enough to negate it as an example? You already used the 'Greece' response, now you move on to the 'America is just different' response. Neither are reasons to ignore Sweden without a lot more explanation.

I didn't negate Sweden or say we should ignore it. I said

I'm all for learning as much as possible about what other countries do.

What's up with this constant misquoting?

I also said that it is not a sufficient example to prove that the US can or should build a European style economy with large social spending and higher taxes. For every Sweden or Germany that you name, I can name a Greece or Portugal. This has nothing to do with complexion by the way. I'm just looking at the headlines of what's going on for some of Europe. Certainly it is complex, and cultural attitudes within nations are important.

As to the rest of the posts, I’ve lost track of the topic sentence. Even more so than usual, we seem to have wandered with different people having different topic sentences, so we are all arguing about different things.

Ricky seems to believe that the topic sentence is that this is all Republican’s fault, and in particular it is Reagan’s legacy. I just don’t agree with that since we’ve had budget surpluses since Reagan’s time. The deficit magnitude since Bush II / Pelosi / Obama have been in charge is breathtaking. I believe there is shared responsibility between Democrats and Republicans because they have both controlled the executive branch at times and they have both controlled the legislature at times over these many years.

Ricky seems to believe that another topic sentence is that social programs work because social security seems to be on firm footing and Sweden is doing just fine. My issue continues to be Medicare which has ballooning deficits. I still haven’t heard Obama’s plan to deal with this; he definitively made it worse 2 years ago. That’s my marker for how good a job he is doing, and I think that should be our topic sentence because it is his speech we are evaluating.

Ray Jay, I apologise. I've met you and I don't think you are racist or were thinking along racist lines. I apologise for creating an impression that you may be, although I assure you that was not my intent. I was wrong to use the words that I did.

I have a longer response on the rest of your post, which I need to compose with some care (clearly).

ray

Ricky seems to believe that the topic sentence is that this is all Republican’s fault, and in particular it is Reagan’s legacy. I just don’t agree with that since we’ve had budget surpluses since Reagan’s time. The deficit magnitude since Bush II / Pelosi / Obama have been in charge is breathtaking. I believe there is shared responsibility between Democrats and Republicans because they have both controlled the executive branch at times and they have both controlled the legislature at times over these many years.
Ricky seems to believe that another topic sentence is that social programs work because social security seems to be on firm footing and Sweden is doing just fine. My issue continues to be Medicare which has ballooning deficits. I still haven’t heard Obama’s plan to deal with this; he definitively made it worse 2 years ago. That’s my marker for how good a job he is doing, and I think that should be our topic sentence because it is his speech we are evaluating.

No Ray I'm not saying Social programs always work. I'm saying that when a country adopts those policies they also have to understand that they have to be paid for by taxation. You pointed towards social programs as a cause of debt.
Sweden offers the example where expensive social programs are NOT the cause of debt.
The significant diffeence is not the culture created by ethnic mix, but the responsibility of politicians and the intelligence of the electorate to accept the real costs that come with services.
And yes, Reagans legacy is in part an acceptance of debt. He was the first politician since the war to run deficits. And he ran 8. (I'll add that there was no worry about trade deficits or relocation of industry in his reign either. All which contribute to the current economic malaise.)
But if you re-read what I've written you'll note that I've talked about the 30 years since 1980. That includes all the administrations and congresses. In my books, Obama gets a little slack because he was handed the greatest financial meltdown since 29, and you can't do much sailing when everyone is busy bailing. Plus he's dealt with an obstructionist congress more interested in silly symbols than core policy.
But even so, I was responding to your drive by slur of "liberalism" ( failure of social programs) for the current economic problems and debt. Nothing you've said since refutes my response.
I think its tough for conservatives that they have to take responsibility for the failure of their core themes for the last 30 years. That is that " high taxes and ineffiicent, expensive social prorams are the root of all evil and low taxes and deregulation are the solution for all ills".
Its actually the latter which are proven by the history of the last 30 years to be by far the greatest contributors to the accumulated debt.
(By the way, I don't think American conservatives are really traditional conservatives. They stopped being fiscally conservative when the accepted Reagan, and they stopped promoting individual lberty when they embraced the social conservatives agenda of restricting peoples freedoms."



ray

Ricky seems to believe that another topic sentence is that social programs work because social security seems to be on firm footing and Sweden is doing just fine. My issue continues to be Medicare which has ballooning deficits

My point is "THEY CAN WORK". Which means that slagging them as the root of all the economic failures is false. And dishonest. And an attempt at dodging responsibily for the irresponsiible governance that is the real cause. When politicians pander to the electorate with promises of tax breaks, but refuse to cut services - because they know that services will be missed .... Thats the essential problem.
It seems that Swedes do offer that as evidence as well. That even socialists can be fiscal conservatives. And that by comparison US "conservatives" are not.

Ricky seems to believe that another topic sentence is that social programs work because social security seems to be on firm footing and Sweden is doing just fine. My issue continues to be Medicare which has ballooning deficits. I still haven’t heard Obama’s plan to deal with this; he definitively made it worse 2 years ago. That’s my marker for how good a job he is doing, and I think that should be our topic sentence because it is his speech we are evaluating

Again, I'm saying they CAN work.
And frankly if you want to get into another discussion of medical systems, you'll find that the Swedes shine in this area too. If you really think that Obama should be able to turn your current system, rife with regulations gamed to benefit insurance companies, big pharma, and the medical industry.... in two years....
You'll have to prove that he has the powers of dictate and should have used them. Your political system, and the level of political discourse has distorted the discussion on this phenomenally. When you blame Medicare for economic problems, you also have to acknowledge that even within the overall US system, Medicare is still much more cost effective and cost efficient then the private sector.
And the answer to fixing your health care system isn't either deregulation nor tax cuts. So I don't know what the right offers today. (Other than torte reform which I applaud but which has made little difference in Texas)
But if you magically import the Swedish system over night, you'd cut health expenditures by about half. And wouldn't that go a long ways to making things better?

danivon wrote:Ray Jay, I apologise. I've met you and I don't think you are racist or were thinking along racist lines. I apologise for creating an impression that you may be, although I assure you that was not my intent. I was wrong to use the words that I did.

I have a longer response on the rest of your post, which I need to compose with some care (clearly).

Thanks -- we're good.

My additional thoughts are that ethnicity and culture do not rule us. They don't have to define us, but they do influence us, and we shouldn't pretend that they don't exist. Everyone can break out of whatever stereotypes, positive or negative, are attached to their culture. At the same time I think it is disingenuous to pretend that culture is not important. That's just too PC a concept for me. Let's be real and accept who we are. For example, I'm shaped by being an American, and I'm shaped by my ethnicity / religion. I share many characteristics with other Americans and other Jews, but I also have my own idiosyncrasies that are independent of those two cultural identities.

Ricky:

I'm saying that when a country adopts those policies they also have to understand that they have to be paid for by taxation.

And an attempt at dodging responsibily for the irresponsiible governance that is the real cause. When politicians pander to the electorate with promises of tax breaks, but refuse to cut services - because they know that services will be missed .... Thats the essential problem.

If you really think that Obama should be able to turn your current system, rife with regulations gamed to benefit insurance companies, big pharma, and the medical industry.... in two years....

So, since we are talking about Obama's speech, it seems to me that you are refusing to take Obama to task for what he's done. His legislation has increased US health care costs by $1 trillion. He has expanded access, but the savings aren't there. He has not raised taxes sufficiently to pay for it. Hasn't Obama been complicit in pandering to the electorate by promising services that he has not figured out how to pay for? My reading is that you give him a free pass; correct me if I'm wrong.

Here's question #2: how do you reconcile Keynesian economics with your statement: "when a country adopts those policies they also have to understand that they have to be paid for by taxation". Isn't the definition of Keynesian stimulus the conscious decision by the government to buy things that it will pay for later. Perhaps you get a free pass if it is an investment (and we can debate how good the investment is) but much of the Obama stimulus was not an investment per se (unemployment insurance, state governments to pay for municipal payroll, etc.)

http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/federal_deficit


In the 20th century the US ran a defict during World War I, the Great Depression, World War II, and in almost all years since 1960, during peace and war.

RickyP,
Your statement about Reagan was the first president since the war to run a deficit is false. That was unless you meant the Sino-Vietnamese war of 1979. If that was what you meant I retract my disagreement.