Us presidential election 2004

[KaRRiLLioN 0]

You are aware that the Democrats controlled the US economy for 40 years through the legislature, correct? During that time the budget was never in balance regardless of whether the President was a Dem or Republican. What I do know is that they added tons of wasteful social programs.

When you say Republicans Tax and Spend, do you mean they cut taxes and deficit spend? If so, then yes I've seen that occur. John F. Kennedy himself, however promoted the same sort of spending.

Remember, the president doesn't control the budget or make legislation. The Congress does that, and it has been in the red under both Dems and Rep's.

Remember the economy being in the black? The Republicans controlled the Congress. It only came into balance after the Republicans took over congress. Before then it was in deficit.

[denoir 0]

I don't misunderstand.  I consider police, military, roads, etc. to be infrastructure.  As I said in my earlier post, I'm willing to pay my FAIR share for infrastructure.

 

The point is that you'll never pay your FAIR share, unless you are exactly mr. Joe Average. If you have a higher income then you'll pay more in taxes. One who earns less money will pay less but get the same infrastructure you get. So your definition of "FAIR" makes little sense.

But yes, you seem to have a very libertarian position. As you said yourself, you see the government as a necessary evil. And that's understandable, libertarianism has a tradition in the US. The wild west and all that. It was not so long ago and you still havn't fully evolved from that colonist enterpreneur spirit. It is however on the way out. America is one of the last libertarian strongholds.

But even conservatives like Bush, that have strong libertarian tendencies have softened up a lot. He's spending more money on medicare and social services than any of his republican predecessors. And it's unavoidable. Our societies are becoming far to complex to have such a banal implementation as libertarianism offers. This is mainly because the old concepts of unlimited resources, unlimited production capabilities and unlimited consumerism are not really valid any more. Also the naive assumption that the amount of hard work + enterpreneur spirit equals economic sucess is outright wrong. It was a nice sentiment when Americans were European colonists with an endless amount of land, very few regulations and the same opportunities for everybody. That is not the case today as America has grown into a real society with its own internal structures and social segregation. People are not born equal and they do not have the same opportunities. If you're born into the right family, are of the right race then you can become president without too much effort. If you are on the other hand the wrong race, born in a ghetto, then your future does not look too bright, no matter how hard you work. etc etc

Quote[/b] ]I think that most liberal ideology, while it sounds greatand compassionate on the surface, is often unworkable and actually restricts freedom while spending money in a wasteful way.  Not only that, but lack of burden of responsibility for your future will dampen the human spirit and cause a severe lack of innovation.

Liberal economic ideology is the future. We're going towards a fully automated industry. Already today very few manhours of work per capita are required to provide basic needs for everybody. What do you plan on doing when we have a fully automated industry and agriculture? We're seeing that problem in Europe now. Several countries have lowered the normal work day from eight hours per day to six hours. And the more automated production we get, the less will work in any way be equal money. Already now for instance here in Sweden, you can make a choice of not working and live of social security. And while you won't have a luxurious life, it would still be decent - you would afford a place to live, food and probably have some money over for other stuff. This is financed through our high taxes. And guess what - we don't have a budget deficit at all. Is it unfair that some people work their ass off while other enjoy getting free stuff from the state? You can bet your ass it's unfair. But a social system will always be disproportionate unless you advocate the most radical form of laissez faire. And living quality is increasing for everybody at the same time, so in practice that nasty huge tax isn't so huge when you look at it in absolute terms.

And overall, that's where the world is going (at least the western world). Fully automated production and agriculture. Much more extensive social services that cost a heap of money.

This is still an unresolved problem as market economy is not very compatible with such a system. You still need to get the money to finance those social services. France and Germany for instance are now experiencing large structural economic problems thanks to this. They've automated their industry to an absurd extent. The consumer market is saturated, wich limits the market. The number of work hours have been reduced and social services have reached enormous proportions. And it doesn't add up economically. So as I said, it's still largely an unsolved problem, but the clear tendencies are in that direction and they are an unavoidable effect of having a very automated industry.

America isn't quite there yet due to your less automated industry and very different consumer profile. But you'll get there, probably sooner than you think.

[walker 0]

When you say Republicans Tax and Spend, do you mean they cut taxes and deficit spend?  If so, then yes I've seen that occur.  John F. Kennedy himself, however promoted the same sort of spending.

Remember, the president doesn't control the budget or make legislation.  The Congress does that, and it has been in the red under both Dems and Rep's.

Remember the economy being in the black?  The Republicans controlled the Congress.  It only came into balance after the Republicans took over congress. Before then it was in deficit.

Hi KaRRiLLioN

History from 40 years ago is a great for learning what past policies dont work. 20 years ago is a better indication of current party ability at economics. The previous Republican Administration left the US economy in tatters. The last Democrat Administration spent all its terms successfuly rebuilding it. This Republican Administration once again tore it to shreds that is why your unemployment rate is so bad and you are up to your eyeballs in debt.

When I say Republicans Tax and Spend, I mean Republicans Tax and Spend. You are going to have to pay back your loans like any other debtor. That is why no matter whether you end up with a Republican or a Democrat your tax will go up 70%. That is why Republicans Tax and Spend.

Only a fool believes they wont have to pay back a loan and calls it defecit spending. Because a defecit is just tax you have not been charged yet and is acruing interest all the time you hide under the bed covers calling it defecit spending.

Remember loans are the most expensive form of taxation there is.

The successful budgets in the last 20 years have been set by a Deomcratic Presidency and not by Republicans who Tax and Spend.

ITS THE ECONOMY STUPID!

Kind Regards Walker

[KaRRiLLioN 0]

If a "liberalized" i.e. Socialist economy is the future, where anyone can choose to work or live off welfare, then it will be a sad future indeed unless someone can come up with energy-matter converters to make all of our food and also come up with a cheap, clean limitless source of energy.

It will kill innovation, and we'll see a major decline in new inventions because then there'll be no more rewards for coming up with new things.

My wife is Russian and she grew up in Communist Russia.  She loves the U.S. economy.  Does it have its downsides?  Of course, anything man-made will.  If our future is to reside in that sort of socialist, "government provides all" economy, then we're headed for catastrophe, as we witnessed.  Massive government breeds a lack of respect for individuals, and soon we all become sheep, any of which can simply be discarded for the "good of the whole".

Humans are highly social animals, and while there is a group tendency to be found, we are also highly individualistic.  This is being bred from many who have grown up in economies where the gov't is the hand that provides.  I can understand why some have the view that this is right way, but it's not sustainable, and it's evenutally self-destructive.

As I said, it will lead to a lack of innovation, and stagnation in the populace will occur.  The automation of manufacturing and such doesn't come from socialism, but rather from people innovating and finding better ways of doing things.  Why?  For some, it's money.  For others it's the challenge.  Yet for others it's wanting to make things better for others.  Each has their reasons, but if you take away the reason or the challenge, then what's left?

RE the economy - Iwon't continuosly debate the merits of whether it's Rep's or Dem's in the white house.  All I can say is that the proof is in the pudding.  Up until the Rep's took over congress in 1994, there was massive deficit spending by Democrats on their pet social projects.  The Dem's had a radically different spending idea from Reagan, but he was too popular to completely defy.  Therefore an agreement was reached and Reagan got his spending priorities, the military spending he needed to make the Soviets bankrupt themselves, and the Dem's got their social bankroll to enlarge and swell welfare and other black-hole programs.

Then, of course, as it happens about once a decade, a recession hit after the momentous boom years of Reagan.  G.H. Bush inherited the deficit spending from both sides, the balloon of the stock market imploded, and the President, as is so often the case, got the blame. He increased taxes (massively) to no avail.  Clinton came in, increased taxes again but didn't decrease spending.  The Dem's, arrogant at having had power for so long fought amongst themselves for larger portions of the Federal Bankroll.  Spending increased, more deficits.  Then the Dem's were knocked out of power by the "Republican Revolution".  Spending was cut, deficits came down, and responsible spending was popular in Washington.  Welfare was reformed as were other major wasteful social spending projects.

Then, the best thing happened in Washington that can happen there.  The gov't deadlocked.  Neither side would budge and thus and we had status quo for a while.  This let the economy loose and it soared.  As is the case in such times, people spent like crazy and corporations invested in tons of capital expenditures, especially internet infrastructure, thus setting up the next recession.

It's not so cut and dried as having one party in power and making the economy perfect.  I am inferring from your previous posts that you are a party-loyal Dem who cannot be swayed by facts.  I'll accept this and not try to further argue my point since it's obviously wasted here.  I am not wholly satisfied with Bush's decisions with social spending.  He is obviously trying to pander to wider audience.

All the more reason why I rarely venture into the Off-Topic area.  While I find most of the arguments interesting, if not one-sided, it's a waste of electrons, which thankfully, are in plentiful supply here.

I just hope (and it's far-fetched) that we can soon move out and find other inhabitable worlds, and recapture the human spirit of individualism and entrepreneurialism which is slowly being dampened here by ever expanding and suffocating government interference.

Wwerd.

[hellfish6 7]

*Hellfish pokes his head in, looks around and screams:*

CLICK ON ME!

*Hellfish then runs*

[ralphwiggum 6]

I don't disagree with his military spending for the most part, but I do disagree with the extra social spending he has piled on, i.e. the prescription drug benefit being the largest.

You'll be surprised by some of things seniors had to say. they say it does little for their prescription drug problem. the leglation passed a few months ago was not a good fix, but passed only because it's better than not doing.

Quote[/b] ]I think, however, that a liberal would increase social spending, which I am against.

both GOP and Dems do that.

Quote[/b] ]I would say I'm more of a Libertarian than I am a conservative on many issues, although some do intermingle. I think that most liberal ideology, while it sounds greatand compassionate on the surface, is often unworkable and actually restricts freedom while spending money in a wasteful way. Not only that, but lack of burden of responsibility for your future will dampen the human spirit and cause a severe lack of innovation.

when private market fails, public intervention is needed. and unfortuantely, wellbeing of an individual is not necessarily that of society's. So there will be always some kind of discord between individuals on what society has to go for. good news is that there are some directions that all can agree upon, and others not.

and your description more or les fits USSR, not current state of US. I say US society is still on the market side then social distribution side.

[denoir 0]

If a "liberalized" i.e. Socialist economy is the future, where anyone can choose to work or live off welfare, then it will be a sad future indeed unless someone can come up with energy-matter converters to make all of our food and also come up with a cheap, clean limitless source of energy.

While we're not there yet we're certainly heading that way. I read in the news the other day that a Saab car factory here in Sweden started itself up during the night because a software glitch, produced a number of cars and then shot itself down. No humans involved. Food is cheap today. The massive agricultural system we have is capable of producing much more than what we need. While it's not yet as automated as the industry, it will be as well. You don't need people to plow fields. You don't need people to breed, feed and milk cows. This can all be automated. The question of course in the end is energy, which we don't have yet. I have no doubt in my mind that we'll find something. In a single gram of matter, there is more binding energy than produced by all power plants in the world. We've only been in the serious energy-conversion business for a century. Give it some time and I'm sure we'll come up with something. So far we've always managed to adapt our energy production to our needs. I don't see why that would change.

Bottom line is that with not much more advanced technology we have today we can sustain the world's population without them really having to move a finger.

Then there's the question of limited resources, somthing that (if you solve the energy problem) isn't as much a technological problem as a social one. And this is where we run into trouble. Imagine you can get all products for free, without any work. How do you do a ranking of people then? How do you distribute limited resources as land if money has no value? I don't know, but it's a problem we'll be facing one day (unless you believe that the tens of thousands old trend of automating production through better tools will suddenly end).

Quote[/b] ]It will kill innovation, and we'll see a major decline in new inventions because then there'll be no more rewards for coming up with new things.

You are making a very wrong and very naive assumption - a problem in the core of the laissez faire ideology. You'r assuming that all people have ambitions of innovation and improvement. The fact is however that most people are drones, completely uninterested in their work and their only ambition in life is to have it comfortable, to watch TV and to reproduce. For centuries most people were farmers, then after the industrial revolution they were drones in factories instead. Now they're more and more drone information workers, pushing paper. Bottom line most people are in production and services. Very few deal with innovation. The main interest of your typical drone is maintaining status quo. People do have career ambitions and such things, but that is on such a low level that it does not in any way further the global progress of man kind. And these drones make up for the absolute majority of the population. Treat them badly and you'll pay - like the Russian Tsar noticed when it was already too late. These people are important because they maintain the production cycle that support our daily lives. There are also the people that can be already now or in the future be replaced with machines. So having the government give them the comfortable, uneventful life where they can watch football all day does not have any impact on the society. Not only that but you'll have a resource pool from which you can gather potential innovators such as engineers, scientists etc

Quote[/b] ]If our future is to reside in that sort of socialist, "government provides all" economy, then we're headed for catastrophe, as we witnessed. Massive government breeds a lack of respect for individuals, and soon we all become sheep, any of which can simply be discarded for the "good of the whole".

I don't think you can draw any general conclusions from just looking at communism. If the government is founded on good principles, it does not have to be bad. If its purpose is to serve the people rather than to serve itself then it will be good. The communist system had a number of flaws that were completely unrelated to the size of the government, but ultimately responsible for its breakdown. You can take a look at modern day Europe where the governments are far bigger than the US one and where people are at least as happy materialistically and have the same, if not more number of civil rights.

Quote[/b] ]The automation of manufacturing and such doesn't come from socialism, but rather from people innovating and finding better ways of doing.

You are absolutely right there. Automation of manufacturng does not come from socialism. Socialism comes from automation of manufacturing. Actually socialism is the wrong term here, since it has nothing to do with the original 19'th century socialism, but we can use that term as I think we both know what we are refering to. The bottom line is that if you do have the resources to feed and cloth everybody, why not do it?

Quote[/b] ]Each has their reasons, but if you take away the reason or the challenge, then what's left?

There is no need to take away that. On the contrary with no people in production, we can focus on innovation. Instead of wasting human brain power on working on a periodic production cycle that could be handled by a primitive machine, why not put the people to better use? You'll always have some form of incentive for innovation.

You can take a practical exampel today. Here in Sweden, if you wanted you could live a fairly good life by just living off social security. A perfect example according to you of a stagnating society with lack of innovation. You would be surprised. We have Europe's lowest unemployment rate, we have no budget deficit. Our currency is strong. Our economic strength comes from the tech-industry. We have the highest number of internet users per capita in the world etc etc In short not a stagnating degenerative society. We have a big inefficient government that wastes a lot of money. We have extensive civil and individual liberties - greater than those that people have in the US.

My point being that a very 'liberalized' society in no way has to be stagnant or degenearate just because you have a large government.

Now for my personal taste, Sweden is a too socialist in its economic policies, but that is a completely different matter that is not really related to this discussion.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]*Hellfish pokes his head in, looks around and screams:*

"I believe that ah people that gonna commit crimes shouldn´t have guns ah"

Sums up his incredible stupidity pretty good.

Anyway he has a nice companion for stupid talks that could last for hours. Sometimes I want to be a bug in the oval office.

Tonight on the stupiditiy stage Mr Donald Rumsfeld:

"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."

"We do know of certain knowledge that he [Osama Bin Laden] is either in Afghanistan, or in some other country, or dead."

No. These guys took USA to war. No fun.

[AliMag 0]

Hi,

Who would you choose for president:

Michael More or Rush Limbau?

As you can see, the perfect solution is not for today.

Cheers

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]If a "liberalized" i.e. Socialist economy is the future, where anyone can choose to work or live off welfare, then it will be a sad future indeed unless someone can come up with energy-matter converters to make all of our food and also come up with a cheap, clean limitless source of energy.

You are assuming that all people want to live off welfare, and that is it. This view is directly responsible for your political views I can see.

Quote[/b] ]It will kill innovation, and we'll see a major decline in new inventions because then there'll be no more rewards for coming up with new things.

Yes. Because lord knows there is no invention or scientific discoveries coming out of Europe. That is the most ridiculous thing I have heard. You wrongly assume, again, that the people that come up with innovations, do it for a "reward." The innovators do it for societal betterment, acquisition of further knowledge, or even to "solve a puzzle," not for a bigger house.

And as you said yourself:

Quote[/b] ] For some, it's money. For others it's the challenge.

Innovators will always be innovators, regardless of the political system involved. You are mistaking socialism for some Orwellian hell where individualism is crushed and there are "independant thought alarms." Who is taking away the challenge or incentive? If anything it backs up innovations by giving a strong societal framework and support to accomplish it.

Quote[/b] ]If our future is to reside in that sort of socialist, "government provides all" economy, then we're headed for catastrophe, as we witnessed. Massive government breeds a lack of respect for individuals, and soon we all become sheep, any of which can simply be discarded for the "good of the whole".

Put down "Brave New World" and "1984".

Quote[/b] ]RE the economy - Iwon't continuosly debate the merits of whether it's Rep's or Dem's in the white house. All I can say is that the proof is in the pudding. Up until the Rep's took over congress in 1994, there was massive deficit spending by Democrats on their pet social projects.

Quote[/b] ]The Dem's had a radically different spending idea from Reagan, but he was too popular to completely defy. Therefore an agreement was reached and Reagan got his spending priorities, the military spending he needed to make the Soviets bankrupt themselves, and the Dem's got their social bankroll to enlarge and swell welfare and other black-hole programs.

LOL.

Heaven forbid we make society better for all!

I think you forget Ronald Reagan's massive arms expenditures that sent the deficeit sky-rocketing. Or did you forget his call for a "600 Ship Navy"? What of the B-1? The president primarily sets fiscal policy and then battles Congress over expenditures. I think you also forget in the early days of the Reagan administration, Republican's regained control of the Senate. I think you also forget the ongoing quasi-war known as the Cold War, the cause of much of the deficit spending. And lord knows "trickle down economics" really helped the economy. Yeah right. You also forget the coalition Reagan formed with conservative southern Democrats.

The "recession" of the late 80s early 90s was a direct result of Reagan's fiscal policies.

With social programs that you so easily deride, education, and health are increased for the average worker which is good for the economy. Or do you think only the rich should get that? With the strengthing of the social framework of a society comes the natural strengthing of its economy.

Lord knows the Reps vision is sure working right? How many millions of jobs lost? Economy in the toilet. A deficeit that is spiralling out of control and will have to be paid in some way. Yeah thats just great. And all under the excuse of "terrorism". Oh yeah. Bush said it was because of "increased worker productivity." Right.

Quote[/b] ]I'll accept this and not try to further argue my point since it's obviously wasted here. I am not wholly satisfied with Bush's decisions with social spending. He is obviously trying to pander to wider audience.

It's called The Christian Right.

I am too tired and there is just too much Republican propoganda in your post for me to have to refute. History according to Newt. But I will point out one inescabable fact that you seem to have missed.

The Republicans control the White House, the Congress, most state Governorships, and a majority of state legislatures.

And spending is out of control, even more so then the Reagan years. Record levels. The economy is in the toilet. Millions of jobs lost. Social Security, which you so hate (we'll see how much you hate it when you are 65), is gone. International opinion is at its all time low, after being at a brief all time high. We have lost more and more basic fundemental freedoms. We have a "leader" that has been called, publically, everything from an "asshole" to an "idiot" by other world leaders, a first. And our society has fallen back 40 years (Georgia debating evolution?? Denying basic governmental recognition to people [ie [b[discrimination[/b]] because they like the opposite sex?? Christian Right becoming a dominating force in the politics of this nation??--Remember sepeartion of church and state??) And the Republicans pissed away billions, yes billions in tobacco settlements.

EDIT: Please excuse the typos. It's early, I'm tired, and my tea hasn't kicked in yet....

[KaRRiLLioN 0]

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]

The Dem's had a radically different spending idea from Reagan, but he was too popular to completely defy. Therefore an agreement was reached and Reagan got his spending priorities, the military spending he needed to make the Soviets bankrupt themselves, and the Dem's got their social bankroll to enlarge and swell welfare and other black-hole programs.

LOL.

Heaven forbid we make society better for all!

I think you forget Ronald Reagan's massive arms expenditures that sent the deficeit sky-rocketing.

Urgh, told myself not to respond, but I just can't let this go. I specifically mentioned that both Reagan and the Dem's got to spend their money. The combination of Reagan's military spending plus the Dem's social spending is what increased the deficit. I clearly stated it and yet you act as though I didn't? It wasn't one side or the other acting alone. It was both sides in collusion, each spending money on what they wanted. Vitriolic accusations aside, that is what happened.

The recession was a combination of many things, but to be simple-minded about it and blame the president while absolving the congress is ludicrous. Also, to automatically assume that increased government social spending = better society is not sound thinking. Remember that the government is made up of millions of people, most of whom don't care a whit about you. Their job security does not rely upon your satisfaction, rather it relies upon a union that doesn't care about job performance, but only about the number of members it has. These are the people who are in control of your benefits.

If I could have the money that is removed from my paycheck for SS and put it into a very secure CD and earn 6.5% interest across the rest of my working years, I would have far more for retirement than the measley amount SS pays out.

I'm also not sure why you refer to facts as "Republican propoganda". If that were true then I'd be stating that everything the Rep's did was pure gold. I am not. I am simply stating the factual history and also pointing out that the economy is massive and to assume that the president can make or break the economy without the help of the congress shows a weak grasp on reality.

I can tell you simply skimmed over the post without fully seeing what was there. I guess it's to be expected, however. You have the "Answer" already. All you need is enough bits and pieces of facts to string together to reach this "Answer".

@Walker - To think that congressional decisions over the past 4 years will have no bearing on the election is...well, let's just say it reveals a fundamental lack of political understanding.

Denoir: Sweden is a fascinating case study in capitalism mixed with socialism, because each is at an odd extreme. Sweden has very little agriculture, but large ore interests and of course Ericsson, Abb, Ikea, and Tetra-Pak, Volvo, Saab, Electrolux (my mom had one of those years ago), although many of these companies have relocated a lot of their interests to other countries due to tax purposes. Citizens pay the vast majority of taxes, while corporations pay less, while the opposite is true here in the US. The auto industry is very important to Sweden, but isn't it true that Ford owns a large stake in Volvo and General Motors owns a large stake in Saab? The IT industry is emerging as a very important part of the economy as well.

Some things which help Sweden are the smallish population of 9 million, and the fact that benefits are reserved for citizens. I find it interesting to note that Sweden turned down very recently using the Euro as their currency and are staying with the Krona.

The debt hovers around 52% of GDP, which is quite high, and while there has been a national surplus, about 1.5% last year, local municipalities are in deficit due to large amounts of social spending. I have also seen reports that unemployment is 14%, but much of this is hidden by making the unemployed go to school for skills training, thus classifying them as students and making the unemployment look more like 5%. Also, cronyism is extremely high there, and immigrants often have to change their last names in order to even get interviews.

Anyway, Sweden is a bit OT, but I just wanted to point out that it's not really a valid comparison to the US economy, but rather is more equivalent to California, in size, at least.

[walker 0]

@Walker - To think that congressional decisions over the past 4 years will have no bearing on the election is...well, let's just say it reveals a fundamental lack of political understanding.

Hi KaRRiLLioN

You need to read the statements fully

You have had a Republican Senate, Congress, and Presidency all this time and they and they alone have increased your government spending.

Asked and answered before you put it.

It is not the Democrats who got you in debt it is the Republicans and only the Republicans.

The Republican's Tax and Spend policy is what puts up people's taxes. It is the Republicans who have been caught with their fingers in the cookie jar no one else.

KaRRiLLioN how are you going to cope when your tax has to go up by 70% to pay for The Republican's Tax and Spend policy?

KaRRiLLioN you do know, you will have to pay your debt soon don't you?

ITS THE ECONOMY STUPID!

Kind Regards Walker

[turms 0]

As a sidenote here, I heard somewhere that US has never started a actual war, when the congress and the president have been from different parties.

[ralphwiggum 6]

If I could have the money that is removed from my paycheck for SS and put it into a very secure CD and earn 6.5% interest across the rest of my working years, I would have far more for retirement than the measley amount SS pays out.

unfortunately, that is theoretical thinking. SS depends more or less on number of people working that pays for your SS. in other words, having more future generations work is the key to securing the SS. In essence social security is transfer of income from working population to non-working population that earned certain amount of credits.

and just for realistic comparison, a traditional CD is currently going for 3.20 APY for 7+yr term, which is subject to change due to interest rate change.

use of SS enables use of income from consumers at current date, increasing transaction for current rate, and ultimately GDP. If a good number of people save and not consume, we only need to look at Japan's example where savings were highly recommended. it worked for a while, but it did not help much with economy in the long run.

Quote[/b] ]The auto industry is very important to Sweden, but isn't it true that Ford owns a large stake in Volvo and General Motors owns a large stake in Saab?

don't know about Swedish automakers, but Ford also owns Mitsubishi, and Jaguar, from Japan and UK, respectively. Both JPN and UK are far from socialist countries too.

Quote[/b] ]The debt hovers around 52% of GDP, which is quite high, and while there has been a national surplus, about 1.5% last year, local municipalities are in deficit due to large amounts of social spending. I have also seen reports that unemployment is 14%, but much of this is hidden by making the unemployed go to school for skills training, thus classifying them as students and making the unemployment look more like 5%. Also, cronyism is extremely high there, and immigrants often have to change their last names in order to even get interviews.

52% would have made any other country go belly up. the number is too high and i believe your source needs to be re-examined. Fun thing is that in calculating unemployment rate, those in US that goes to school is not even considered in working population, so US does same thing as Sweden, just like rest of the countries.

If you want to talk about how immigrants get treated, US is no better than sweden, if not more questionable.

Quote[/b] ]Anyway, Sweden is a bit OT, but I just wanted to point out that it's not really a valid comparison to the US economy, but rather is more equivalent to California, in size, at least.

CA, should it be counted as a nation, can end up in top 10 of world economy. so comparison with Sweden is a bit off.

Anyways, I see that you are interested in talking about your opponent's faults in offtopic manner rather than discussing the tread's discussion topic. although you did not go on childinsh name calling, i'd highly suggest that you (and we) discuss ontopic issues.

[ralphwiggum 6]

http://www.cnn.com/2004....ex.html

Quote[/b] ]NEW YORK (AP) -- President Bush's re-election campaign on Thursday defended commercials using images from the September 11 terrorist attacks, including wreckage of the World Trade Center, as appropriate for an election about public policy and the war on terror.

Quote[/b] ]They also feature images of firefighters working through the wreckage.

"It's as sick as people who stole things out of the place," said Firefighter Tommy Fee of Queens Rescue Squad 270. "The image of firefighters at ground zero should not be used for this stuff, for politics."

[KaRRiLLioN 0]

Here's a source for Sweden, maybe I misread?

Quote[/b] ]

Public debt is continuing to be reduced and fell from 71% of GDP in 1998 to 53.6% in 2002. However, deficits are on the increase in municipal budgets, partly as a consequence of higher expenditure on services of general interest and partly due to slower growth in tax revenues.

The link:

http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/www...._id=147

About education:

Quote[/b] ]

Sweden's labor force of 4.3 million is disciplined and experienced in almost all modern technologies. The completely free education system starts out with a 9-year elementary school, followed by an optional high school. But since a high school student receives almost $100 per month for attending high school, and also the need of a higher education, basically everyone continues to high school. After high school, however, the extensive unemployment subsidies offered by the government has become an incentive, and are financially more attractive for individuals to stay home (uneducated) and receive unemployment benefits. As the population has grown in Sweden, (and the need for education has increased), in combination with “under paid†teachers, have resulted in the quality and standard of education dramatically decreasing. High school students are teaching elementary school and the quality of the college education is not far behind the level high school taught just 15 years ago. Colleges are transferred into universities in order to increase its status, and classes are dismissed due to lack of teachers. The Swedish educational system has transferred into a “place†where unemployment is hidden. Unemployed people are forced to attend pointless courses in order to change their status from unemployed to student, once again showing the incompetent actions of the Swedish government.

Link:

http://www.mkeever.com/sweden.html

It was written by a native Swede, BTW.

Yes, since we don't have the choice of keeping what is sent to SS, it is theoretical in some fashion, especially since SS is a pay-as-you-go system. With the baby-boomer population fast approaching retirement, the younger generation will either need to be taxed to the extreme, or the payments will need to be cut, or the system will simply not work. That's why I think we should cut our losses now and move on to something better. The problem is, most people are afraid to take responsibility of their own lives. They *want* gov't to provide all.

I have a hope that perhaps GWB will eventually enact the SS reforms he proposed. SS is always a hot-button topic, of course, but I'd like the choice of determining where my future savings will be saved, rather than having a huge chunk pulled out by the gov't each month. This extra chunk of money could be saved and would have little effect on my spending money, so the reference to the Japanese economic issues doen't quite compute with that.

Quote[/b] ]

Anyways, I see that you are interested in talking about your opponent's faults in offtopic manner rather than discussing the tread's discussion topic. although you did not go on childinsh name calling, i'd highly suggest that you (and we) discuss ontopic issues.

I'm not sure I understand...isn't debate about discussing what one perceives to be the faults of the other? If I were saying, "so-and-so is a moron and he is wrong" without stating anything else, then that is not debate. I believe I've brought plenty of facts to the table here.

Don't let your own beliefs cloud your role as moderator by blaming someone with a good argument for sinking to a level which they have not.

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]Denoir:  Sweden is a fascinating case study in capitalism mixed with socialism, because each is at an odd extreme.  Sweden has very little agriculture, but large ore interests and of course Ericsson, Abb, Ikea, and Tetra-Pak, Volvo, Saab, Electrolux (my mom had one of those years ago), although many of these companies have relocated a lot of their interests to other countries due to tax purposes.  Citizens pay the vast majority of taxes, while corporations pay less, while the opposite is true here in the US.  The auto industry is very important to Sweden, but isn't it true that Ford owns a large stake in Volvo and General Motors owns a large stake in Saab?  The IT industry is emerging as a very important part of the economy as well.

Some things which help Sweden are the smallish population of 9 million, and the fact that benefits are reserved for citizens.  I find it interesting to note that Sweden turned down very recently using the Euro as their currency and are staying with the Krona.  

The debt hovers around 52% of GDP, which is quite high, and while there has been a national surplus, about 1.5% last year, local municipalities are in deficit due to large amounts of social spending.  I have also seen reports that unemployment is 14%, but much of this is hidden by making the unemployed go to school for skills training, thus classifying them as students and making the unemployment look more like 5%.  Also, cronyism is extremely high there, and immigrants often have to change their last names in order to even get interviews.

Anyway, Sweden is a bit OT, but I just wanted to point out that it's not really a valid comparison to the US economy, but rather is more equivalent to California, in size, at least.

Well, you got the basic idea rigth. Just a few comments, 52% of GDP national debt is far less than the US one:

The unemployement, the hard unemployment is about 4% while if you count those that have temporary jobs or go through some form of government-sponsored training, it's around 9%.

As for cronyism, it's simply not true. Corruption Perception Index graphs, CPI ranking

Although I agree that the US and Sweden are not comparable due to their size and structural differences, that wasn't quite the point. The point was to give you an example of a country where people can live quite nicely off wellfare. You claimed that such a system would be doomed for various reasons. I'm showing you an example of a country that has a high level of social protection and that has not gone down the drain.

Now there are plenty of things wrong with Swedish politics and economy, but it's not related to our discussion here.

Edit: source, the national debt in 2003 is 49%.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Here's a source for Sweden, maybe I misread?

Quote[/b] ]

Public debt is continuing to be reduced and fell from 71% of GDP in 1998 to 53.6% in 2002. However, deficits are on the increase in municipal budgets, partly as a consequence of higher expenditure on services of general interest and partly due to slower growth in tax revenues.

The link:

http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/www...._id=147

I think i was thinking more of national debt, not public debt. there's my problem. nice link.

from same page of your second link.

Quote[/b] ]Link:

http://www.mkeever.com/sweden.html

It was written by a native Swede, BTW.

at the bottom of page.

Quote[/b] ]DISCLAIMER

All the information and conclusions in each country analysis are solely the responsibility of the individual student and have not been verified, corrected, checked for copyright infringement or evaluated in any way by MIEPA or Mike P. McKeever. You are solely responsible for the results of any use you make of the information and conclusions in these studies. Use them at your own risk as interesting supplemental information only instead of seasoned judgements about the policy factors contained herein. Each student has granted permission for his or her work to be displayed here under his or her own name or wishes to remain anonymous and have either created a pen name or used no name at all; if you wish to contact them for any reason, forward your request to MIEPA and the student will be notified of your interest.

this is not a verified result, more like response gathering.

Quote[/b] ]Yes, since we don't have the choice of keeping what is sent to SS, it is theoretical in some fashion, especially since SS is a pay-as-you-go system.  With the baby-boomer population fast approaching retirement, the younger generation will either need to be taxed to the extreme, or the payments will need to be cut, or the system will simply not work.  That's why I think we should cut our losses now and move on to something better.  The problem is, most people are afraid to take responsibility of their own lives.  They *want* gov't to provide all.

or reduce benefits. Greenspan said that there is need to re-adjust benefits a few days ago, which Whitehouse was tip-toeing around in fear of election. SS is not about negating individual responsibility, but more of evening out age-related impact of income. in strictest sense of economics, it's all for themselves. this would leave younger and older part of population off the economic activity since it is likely tha t they cannot sustain economic activities like that of a  20,30, or 40 year olds. What SS does is it will spread it out a bit so that elders can get some sort of reward for their work in earlier ages.

the current problme is that money dispersed according to 'contribution' has to change in accordance with population change, which is not happening.

Quote[/b] ]This extra chunk of money could be saved and would have little effect on my spending money, so the reference to the Japanese economic issues doen't quite compute with that.

you as an individual don't but on collective level it's different. The Japan's example was brought up since the Japanese economy relied heavily on savings on individual level that enabled lower lending rate for factories, that made products and sold it. when that market closed down(export not going well) the domestic economy didn't do well either. 90s was a harsh time for JPN's domestic economy.

Quote[/b] ]I'm not sure I understand...isn't debate about discussing what one perceives to be the faults of the other?  If I were saying, "so-and-so is a moron and he is wrong" without stating anything else, then that is not debate.  I believe I've brought plenty of facts to the table here.

Don't let your own beliefs cloud your role as moderator by blaming someone with a good argument for sinking to a level which they have not.

read the thread title. we are here to discuss about US election, not Swedish economy. You knew very well that your comments about Sweden is offtopic, and out of all the nations, you chose to tackle someone who has been your counterpart in your argument.

here is an analogy.

say we are talking about rifles. suddenly one side claims that 'the other side's manufacturing standard is sub par on global scale.' The argument might be related somewhat to gun since it's about machines, but does nothing to discuss about the topic at hand, the rifle.

[denoir 0]

Sorry, Ralph, while I agree with you on the economics stuff, it was actually me, not Karrillion who brought Sweden up. My point was to show that a strong social security does not mean the end of innovation etc etc

Karrillion then posted a short review of the Swedish economy, that was at least in part accurate.

The overall point of mixing Sweden into this was to compare a more socially conscious society like Sweden to a more market-drive society like America.

One side note on government spending - the funny thing in the US is that the Reps spend actually more money than the Dems. The difference is that the republicans more or less always beef up the military, start wars etc, which costs more money than the social security et al

[ralphwiggum 6]

Sorry, Ralph, while I agree with you on the economics stuff, it was actually me, not Karrillion who brought Sweden up. My point was to show that a strong social security does not mean the end of innovation etc etc

yes, thank you for reminding me. words that went to Karriliion goes to you too, for asking not to go OT...

damn, another Ikea attack on this poor soul....

I think this discussion is going far away from presidential election discussioon.

[KaRRiLLioN 0]

Maybe this thread should be retitled "EU-US GDP Analysis from a Swedish analogical viewpoint"

[edit] I like Ikea, btw. Nice furniture..

;)

You know, I'd almost be willing to vote for Nader just to get the major parties out of the White House.  Unfortunately his positions on taxes are out of line with mine.

I wish there were someone running who would eliminate corporate subsidies, reform/remove Social Security, and reform Welfare and Medicaid to reasonable levels.  Immigration controls also need a total revamping.

Believe me, I've had to deal with the Federal Gov't on a host of issues since my wife is Russian.  I've had the extreme pleasure of dealing with the SS Administration, the INS, and other Federal fun.  The gov't is made of millions of people, most of whom do not care if you live or die.  They just want you out of their face.  Speaking of automotons, that's what the gov't is mostly made of.  I just don't want those people in charge of my money, and I don't want them to hold positions of power over me, which they do when you need something from them.

BTW, I voted for Clinton in 1992.  I was idealistic and full of hope.  Then I entered the workforce and saw what his lovely tax increase did for me.  That made up my mind. =)

I don't necessarily blame GWBush for the direction everything is going. Rather I blame the terrorists that sparked everything with 9-11. It's not that they haven't been killing Americans for years, it's just not on such a spectacular level. GWB responded in a manner I agree with. I don't think AlGore would have done the same.

[EiZei 0]

Probably been posted here in some form or other but..

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040304/D813IP7G1.html

Quote[/b] ]

President Bush's re-election campaign on Thursday defended commercials using images from the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, including wreckage of the World Trade Center, as appropriate for an election about public policy and the war on terror.

Some families of the victims of the attacks are angry with Bush for airing the spots, which they called in poor taste and for the president's political gain.

--cut--

It's a slap in the face of the murders of 3,000 people," Monica Gabrielle, whose husband died in the twin towers, told the New York Daily News for its Thursday editions. "It is unconscionable."

Two of the spots show the destruction at the World Trade Center and include an American flag flying amid the debris. They also feature images of firefighters working through the wreckage.

"It's as sick as people who stole things out of the place," said Firefighter Tommy Fee of Queens Rescue Squad 270. "The image of firefighters at ground zero should not be used for this stuff, for politics."

[denoir 0]

You know, I'd almost be willing to vote for Nader just to get the major parties out of the White House.  Unfortunately his positions on taxes are out of line with mine.

I wish there were someone running who would eliminate corporate subsidies, reform/remove Social Security, and reform Welfare and Medicaid to reasonable levels.  Immigration controls also need a total revamping.

I've got two words for you: Ross Perot

Quote[/b] ]Believe me, I've had to deal with the Federal Gov't on a host of issues since my wife is Russian.  I've had the extreme pleasure of dealing with the SS Administration, the INS, and other Federal fun.  The gov't is made of millions of people, most of whom do not care if you live or die.  They just want you out of their face.  Speaking of automotons, that's what the gov't is mostly made of.  I just don't want those people in charge of my money, and I don't want them to hold positions of power over me, which they do when you need something from them.

The problem is not in government per se, but in your very odd combination of complete decentralization in combination with the need of having a central government. It gets very inefficient. Here, thanks to the centralization I can do my government related stuff through the internet. Everything from taxes to getting a new passport.

Anyhow, America has still a lot of "wild west" ideals of individualism and the colonist heritige of mistrust towards a central government. In the end however our civilization is formed around an organized society. If we all were just individuals working for ourselves then we would still be living in caves today.

[raedor 8]

Maybe this thread should be retitled "EU-US GDP Analysis from a Swedish analogical viewpoint"

[edit] I like Ikea, btw. Nice furniture..

;)

i hope kerry makes it. but i don't know if his politics will be much different to bush's. we'll see. and we can hope!

[raedor 8]

Quote[/b] ]President Bush's re-election campaign on Thursday defended commercials using images from the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, including wreckage of the World Trade Center, as appropriate for an election about public policy and the war on terror.

no wonder that e.g. one third of the greek thought that 9/11 was "made" by the cia...

i can't hear the words "war on terror" much longer every time bush says that it sounds more like war for terror