Americans Hate their Fabulous Economy

I would trade with the Europeans in a heartbeat. In order to gain universal healthcare, at the expense only of the few rich Americans who actually profit from a rapid growth rate based on GDP. Unemployment is only a bad thing when the "morally superior" thing to do is be employed. I am employed but wish I wasn't. Where do I fit into the numbers?

we could have 10% unemployment and 1% economic growth

Do you like making up numbers or something?

Do you like making up numbers or something?

The actual numbers for the EU are 8.5% unemployment and 2.3% (projected) GDP growth, so maybe he's exaggerating a bit, but the point stands. I'd link to the Wikipedia article, but I'm too new.

The numbers were fictional. The point doesn't really stand considering the growth and unemployment levels in the EU range from 1-4% growth and 4-11% unemployment, and he relates it to something completely different anyway.

If your claim of a robust economy is true you should be able to locate a more authoritative source than a random blogger. There is a full political spectrum of think tanks and economists to choose from. Cite the President's new FED Chairman or his Treasury Secretary but don't insult the intelligence of the readers with an opinion blog by a nobody. If the good news exists, surely many will have evidence for you to use. Find it.

False Choices Lead to False Conclusions

If only, instead of 4% economic growth and 4% unemplyment, we could have 10% unemployment and 1% economic growth, like those enlightened cosmopolitan Europeans, who we keep hearing are so sophisticated and superior to us...

Perhaps you should actually use data before you make such blanket statements.

EU growth outstrips US and Japan September 1, 2006

Who says the Europeans are so sophisticated and superior, and other than emotional propaganda value what does it have to do with the issues?

Your choice is a completely false one overly simplistic and yes unsophisticated. So long as you are comparing, yes most Americans want universal healthcare like they have in Europe, many would probably like longer vactions too.

The actual numbers for the EU are 8.5% unemployment and 2.3% (projected) GDP growth, so maybe he's exaggerating a bit, but the point stands.

Insofar as the point is whether there must be a choice between two different options, the point does not stand. Its not a matter of either the current policy or wholesale adoption of European policy. Nor is it even just a matter of policy since there are different resources and many other issues at play. The whole presentation as if these were are only alternatives is a false choice.

All I'm saying is that, according to Wikipedia, his numbers are not sufficiently distanced from reality to invalidate his point. You can disagree with his opinion all you like--I certainly disagree with his delivery--but that's a separate issue.

You may also want to take into account that the US ranks 92nd in the Gini Index of income equality.

Interesting to examine the countries that US comes closest to in terms of income equality:

88 People's Republic of China 89 Bolivia 90 Philippines 91 Costa Rica

92 United States*

93 Guinea-Bissau 94 Dominican Republic 95 Madagascar 96 The Gambia

Socialism isn't oposed to freedom, however, many of yours views are.

The freedom to make as much money as I am able. The freedom to keep as much of that money in my pocket and not in government's.

The freedom of greed.

The freedom to own property and do with it as I please.

The freedom to consolidate wealth.

The freedom to share, or not to share, the fruits of my labor.

The freedom to not share inheritance.

The freedom to live life as I please and not have socialists tell me how to live it.

The freedom to keep my wealth and tell others how to live their life, in want, poverty, deprivation, or oppression.

You were doing so well until that last one.

Yeah, that's where your understanding of reality breaks down.

Your idea of freedom revolves around making the rich richer, and keeping the poor poorer, not opportunity. The freedom from want, poverty, deprivation, or oppression, that's opportunity.

My idea of freedom gives everyone equal opportunity to become as rich as their ambition and talent can make them.

That's socialism, your idea will only make the rich richer. As you explain:

And for them to have the freedom to keep the wealth that they have earned and do with it what they please.

"Earned" is highly subjective.

I don't view freedom as taking from the rich to give to the poor.

I don't view freedom as want, poverty, deprivation, or oppression.

That's what private charity is for.

Have you seen how private charity serves the poor. Market forces can't dictate that.

This is socialism. Equality of opportunity is not the same as equal distribution of property and wealth.

Equality of opportunity is not the same as conservatism either.

Only to those that don't work for their living.

The rich?

Want is a vice and should not be equated with need.

Not in this context it isn't.

Poverty and deprivation are facts of life.

Not for some it isn't, and it's to do with unequal opportunity.

Yes. And they do it more efficiently. Just look to Hurricane Katrina and how quickly the Red Cross and private companies like Walmart were able to get help to people. They mobilized while government, both local and federal, where discussing how to go about helping people.

Your comparing private charity to a conservative government and declaring private Charity and conservative governments the winner. Hilarious.

Not fabulous for the poor

Between 1993 and 2000 the percentage of Americans living in poverty steadily declined from 15.1% in 1993 to 11.3% in 2000.

Between 2000 and 2005 the percenatge of Americans living in poverty increased from 11.3% to 12.6%.