Romeny on the "failed" Socialist Countries of Europe

[Adam Caramon]

Your conclusion is based on what I would call a flawed premise: that more federal government will help. In my view, we'd be better off with less federal government (perhaps more local).

I wouldn't be opposed to some non-federal system that manages our issues (healthcare and education in particular), its just that such a system does not exist in our world to my knowledge. A federal-type model does exist, and is wildly successful in several other countries.

All the federal government is good at is creating bloat and waste.

I would disagree strongly. If there were no federal government mandates, there would still be schools in the south teaching creationisim. Segregation would likely still exisit. Not to mention the millions of people that have been helped by Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Certainly we can work on the costs of the domestic programs, but their value and popularity should make it clear that they are not simply "bloat and waste".

 

[Vassago]

I would disagree strongly. If there were no federal government mandates, there would still be schools in the south teaching creationisim. Segregation would likely still exisit. Not to mention the millions of people that have been helped by Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Certainly we can work on the costs of the domestic programs, but their value and popularity should make it clear that they are not simply "bloat and waste".

Agreed. I'm sick of the argument that federal assistance programs are abused. Of course it's abused, we get it! But the statistics prove they are not nearly as abused as opponents make them out to be.

Florida recently passed a law that you must submit to a monthly drug test to recieve welfare. The law stated that if you passed your drug test, you would be reimbursed for the costs of the drug test. After the law went into effect, this is what we saw:

96% passed the drug test. 2% refused to take it. 2% failed. The average drug test costs around $30. So basically, to save the money that 4% of all people would have recieved on welfare, we would have paid for drug tests for 96% of welfare recipients to continue to recieve welfare... monthly! Does this sound like it was a good plan? Not in the least. I'd must rather 10 people recieve welfare that are abusing it than 1 person not recieve it that truly needs it. This is my view on the situation, but obviously, the numbers that opponents try to boast are largely hyped.

A federal judge barred the law after seeing the results. It should never have been signed to begin with. It was just a greedy way for our corrupt governor, Rick Scott, to make more money on the taxpayer's dime. I'm just glad we don't have State taxes.

 

[Adam Caramon]

96% passed the drug test. 2% refused to take it. 2% failed. The average drug test costs around $30. So basically, to save the money that 4% of all people would have recieved on welfare, we would have paid for drug tests for 96% of welfare recipients to continue to recieve welfare... monthly! Does this sound like it was a good plan? Not in the least.

If it is the same law I am thinking of, its even worse than that. Those that failed their drug tests were allowed to name another individual to receive the government assistance for them.

I'm very liberal on a lot of issues, but on welfare and certain other forms of entitlements, I tend to be more conservative. I don't think that anyone should get a free ride. Placing more restrictions on who can receive government assistance is fine in my view, assuming it serves a purpose and doesn't cost more than what it saves (as in your example).

However, it seems with hardline conservatives there is a line in the sand on welfare and other forms of government assistance. There can't even be a rational conversation with some of them.

I read an article on CNN recently about this very topic, and a few individuals were suggesting that for a woman to receive government assistance she should have to agree to measures that would prevent her from getting pregnant (I believe the example was an IUD). While I understand the frustation that some have over individuals living on welfare and continually having more children, requiring them not to have children seems incredibly draconian.

 

[Vassago]

If it is the same law I am thinking of, its even worse than that. Those that failed their drug tests were allowed to name another individual to receive the government assistance for them.

I'm very liberal on a lot of issues, but on welfare and certain other forms of entitlements, I tend to be more conservative. I don't think that anyone should get a free ride. Placing more restrictions on who can receive government assistance is fine in my view, assuming it serves a purpose and doesn't cost more than what it saves (as in your example).

However, it seems with hardline conservatives there is a line in the sand on welfare and other forms of government assistance. There can't even be a rational conversation with some of them.

I read an article on CNN recently about this very topic, and a few individuals were suggesting that for a woman to receive government assistance she should have to agree to measures that would prevent her from getting pregnant (I believe the example was an IUD). While I understand the frustation that some have over individuals living on welfare and continually having more children, requiring them not to have children seems incredibly draconian.

Even worse than that, would there be criminal prosection for those who didn't follow the rule? What if they had more children? Would they go to jail? Would the kids be placed in foster care, costing the taxpayers money anyway? How can you enforce a rule like that?

 

[Vassago]

I'm more concerned about the corporate giants getting richer while not passing the wealth onto the people who put them there. It's getting worse as well. I could care less if some single mother is taking advantage of wealthfare when I'm not even seeing money I have earned on my paycheck. My annual raise this year was a mere 2%. That will barely, if at all, cover the increase in gas prices this year, essentially meaning I am making less money this year for more work, including helping to gain a huge portfolio that probably went to the higher ups new yacht. We're already seeing record gas prices where I live.

Where's the balance?

 

[ColinEssex]

I'm more concerned about the corporate giants getting richer while not passing the wealth onto the people who put them there. It's getting worse as well. I could care less if some single mother is taking advantage of wealthfare when I'm not even seeing money I have earned on my paycheck. My annual raise this year was a mere 2%. That will barely, if at all, cover the increase in gas prices this year, essentially meaning I am making less money this year for more work, including helping to gain a huge portfolio that probably went to the higher ups new yacht. We're already seeing record gas prices where I live.

Where's the balance?

Is the great USA finally waking up to the real world? I doubt it.

Petrol prices in the UK are $9.54 per gallon (I filled up today) and many industries and public sector workers are facing yet another year of 0% pay rises - it's now the "norm" here.

A packet of 20 decent fags costs around $10

So how much is a gallon of petrol where you live?

What is "wealthfare"?

Col

 

[Vassago]

Is the great USA finally waking up to the real world? I doubt it.

I doubt it as well. Most people here are still pretty ignorant of the rest of the world, thanks to censorship by our government and the media.

Petrol prices in the UK are $9.54 per gallon (I filled up today) and many industries and public sector workers are facing yet another year of 0% pay rises - it's now the "norm" here.

At least driving isn't quite as required there. With your country being smaller than my state by total land size, that should help. I wish my country would embrace other forms of transportation. It would be great to have trains in the same abundance as Japan.

A packet of 20 decent fags costs around $10

Depending on where you live here, it's about the same price. In New York, you'll pay more, in Florida, you'll pay less.

So how much is a gallon of petrol where you live?

It's about $3.70 on average around here.

What is "wealthfare"?

Col

My phone likes to misspell words for me while I was in a rush.

 

[pbaldy]

Petrol prices in the UK are $9.54 per gallon (I filled up today) and many industries and public sector workers are facing yet another year of 0% pay rises - it's now the "norm" here.


So how much is a gallon of petrol where you live?

US$3.55 yesterday. The differential in the price of petrol/gasoline/fuel is due to your tax structure. We pay about the same amount for the actual product. You have much higher taxes levied on that product, so you pay more. If you're bothered by the price you pay, talk to your politicians.

 

[ColinEssex]

US$3.55 yesterday. The differential in the price of petrol/gasoline/fuel is due to your tax structure. We pay about the same amount for the actual product. You have much higher taxes levied on that product, so you pay more. If you're bothered by the price you pay, talk to your politicians.

Being as your petrol is over 50% cheaper than ours (yes most of it is tax) obviously your government doesn't yet need the tax revenue so I can't really see that you have any economic problems in the USA.

Back on topic, I see old Mitty is a mormon - how does belonging to a weird religious cult affect the way voters think? Is having such a religious freak going to help or hinder the USA?

Col

 

[pbaldy]

Back on topic...

Actually, that's going off topic. Given that the topic is "Romeny (sic) on the "failed" Socialist Countries of Europe", the discussion of "socialist" big-government spending and the resulting high levels of taxation/borrowing is on topic. Religion in politics is a different topic.

 

[Steve R.]

Evidently, news stories question Romney's assertions are increasingly surfacing. It's unfortunate that Romney has to denigrate Europe in his quest to oust Obama from the White House. There is also a bit of deceit on the part of Romney. He lambasted Obama for apologizing for America's actions; yet Romney is going out of his way to unnecessarily vilify Europe for self-serving political reasons. Like Obama, Romney may have to apologize for his words should he win. Romney should be more focused on exposing Obama's many failures.

Washington Post Article: "Europeans shrug off Mitt Romney’s criticism"

The Post writes: "As a result, Romney’s assertion that President Obama wants to “turn America into a European-style entitlement society” has stirred much irony but little ire in Europe. Such caricatures are familiar to most Europeans, analysts said, even as European countries try to trim spending to address a deepening financial crisis."

Christian Science Monitor article: Is Mitt Romney's Europe-bashing well placed?"

The Christian Science Monitor wrote: "In three withering references at the end of a fiery 10-minute speech last night, the GOP front-runner depicted “Europe” as weak, socialist, an object of pity and, compared with the shining American model, lacking inspiration."

-----

Since posting, I was greeted (this morning) with the following opinion piece in the Washington Post by Harold Meyerson: "The GOP scrambles for a bogeyman".

Mr. Meyerson wrote: "Of late, a favorite Republican theme is that President Obama is a European socialist. “I am for the Constitution,” Newt Gingrich recently proclaimed, while Obama “is for European socialism.” Not to be outdone, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney has suggested that the choice between Obama and himself is one between “a European-style welfare state” or “a free land.”"

 

[Vassago]

The ONLY candidate that really has a chance to win on the Republican card against Obama is Paul, IMO. Romney might have a slight chance. The other two, forget it. Most voters do not want an over-religious zealot in office. Romney is the closest moderate next to Paul.

Paul has the best chance because of his middle area attitude toward policy. He's also the only one that consistently votes based on the right thing to do, regardless of his own personal beliefs. He also predicted the economic mess we are in long before any other politician started to take notice. I trust him more than the others.

But mark my words, I and many many of the people who read my commentary on the election, will be voting Obama if Paul is not running. We would rather see him in office than 4 years of any other candidate but Paul.

 

[Steve R.]

Paul has the best chance because of his middle area attitude toward policy. He's also the only one that consistently votes based on the right thing to do, regardless of his own personal beliefs. He also predicted the economic mess we are in long before any other politician started to take notice. I trust him more than the others.

Paul is the only one that offers real change and restoration of civil liberties. Romney, like Obama, will continue the trend toward diminishing civil liberties in that name of this or that "war". Unless Paul wins, look for SOPA/PIPA and ACTA to immediately resurface on November 7, 2012 as proposed legislation.

 

[Jacob Mathai]

What is now happening in Greece? Why people are on the street? What is the need for all these austerity measures? Can't they provide cradle to grave support by Government? Wealth redistribution not working in Greece? I cannot believe that. Is Germany so selfish they will not give their credit card to Greece?

Margaret Thatcher said it best. The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.

 

[Adam Caramon]

What is now happening in Greece? Why people are on the street? What is the need for all these austerity measures? Can't they provide cradle to grave support by Government? Wealth redistribution not working in Greece? I cannot believe that. Is Germany so selfish they will not give their credit card to Greece?

Greece's problems are many and varied, and your simplifying it down to "socialism" is dishonest at best. Americans who rail against socialism generally don't understand what socialism actually is.

There are some other EU countries that could be considered "socialist", using the same definititon. These countries have far better education systems than the US does and higher levels of healthy individuals.

There is a ton of money spent in the US each year to convince Americans that Europeans are unhappy individuals, paying massive taxes and getting nothing for their money. This message is pushed by those that benefit from keeping things the way they are here.

The truth is far from that. Europeans look at the US as being the backwords ones. They don't understand how we can have a country where an individual can't afford to go to school. Or someone could have gone bankrupt due to medical bills.

So, if you're going to point at Greece and claim "socialism doesn't work", then you really should try to be a little bit honest and include examples of countries where similiar systems are working.

Lastly, its really entertaining how this completely breaks down on age lines. If I had to guess, I would say you're 50+. It seems most older Americans view things a certain way, and regardless if that way is accurate or can be backed up with facts, they take pride in sticking to that point of view.

Europe is not perfect, but as far as education and healthcare, it is superior to the US in most ways.

 

[Jacob Mathai]

Any country (including USA) that follows the pathway of Greece will sooner or later end up like Greece. What is happening?

Massive debt that they cannot repay.
Massive underground economy
Massive tax evasion
Massive entitlement programs (cradle to grave)
Massive Government employment (high salary + benefits + early retirement + life long pension)

I was reading an article in a newspaper about Greece. The Government doctors (may be some) are only treating rich folks who pay cash for the services. In addition to his Government salary, the Dr. gets tax free money.
In many countries, the great education system is geared for getting a Govt job. A paycheck is guaranteed regardless of productivity. They get into wealth redistribution, not wealth creation.

The question is whether other countries in EU join the ranks of Greece (hope not).

Every country has financial issues unless it has significant natural resources. Politicians are willing to give more and more to the people in exchange for votes.
Yes, I am 60+ in age. I am an immigrant to USA. I am a US citizen. I could see this pattern developing (or already here) in USA.

It is hard to argue with any politician who promises everything the people want to hear. They also win elections. The reality sinks in later. Then, it may be too late.

 

[Adam Caramon]

Any country (including USA) that follows the pathway of Greece will sooner or later end up like Greece. What is happening?

Ok, agreed. But what is "the pathway of Greece". Basically what you're saying is "If you do exactly what Greece did, you'll end up like Greece." There's no real way to argue against that. I would say that's a much less biased statement than saying "Greece = socialism = failure".

In many countries, the great education system is geared for getting a Govt job. A paycheck is guaranteed regardless of productivity. They get into wealth redistribution, not wealth creation.

That seems far too general a statement and is not backed up by any evidence. According to a gallup poll in 2010: "Federal, state, or local government employs 17% of U.S. workers nationally." If the EU's education systems gear their learners towards public sector jobs, what % would you expect to find as public sector workers? 30%? 40%?

 

[Vassago]

That was my point. Socialist governments can work, just like any other form of government. It's when greed and power become a factor that the types of governments fail.