Blogs and Stories
Hooray for Obama's 'Socialist' Budget
Charles Dharapak / AP Photo
As the GOP slams Obama's new budget for turning us all into welfare-mad Europeans, Daily Beast columnist Matthew Yglesias asks: What's so wrong with that?
Later this week, the Obama administration is expected to release the details of its budget proposal, the broad outlines of which passed Congress yesterday with no Republican votes. A lack of bipartisan support is becoming customary, but the specific terms of the debate are interesting. As The Hill reported: "Republicans blasted the budget as a turn toward a bigger-government philosophy prevalent in Europe." Obama's proposals, in other words, aren't just bad. They're downright un-American! But political attacks can sometimes have surprising results. Thus, the main impact of the conservative movement's months-long campaign to brand Barack Obama a dangerous radical who's going to bring European-style socialism to the United States has been raising poll numbers for socialism, especially among the young. After all, the term is fairly vague, but people have concrete opinions about Obama (they like him) and about his antagonists (they don't like them) so if Obama's for socialism, the thinking goes, it can't be all bad.
Americans cling to the idea that inequality and sky-high child poverty rates are the price we have to pay for the social mobility we crave. In fact, the reverse is true.
Optimistically, a secondary effect of Republican attacks will be to get people thinking more seriously about a European-style welfare state which, despite ossified conventional wisdom, is in many ways exactly what we need.
Relatively sluggish European growth in the 1990s gave the continent a reputation for economic dysfunction. But back in January 2008—i.e., before the dawn of the current recession—Paul Krugman observed that during the most recent economic upswing, job growth in Europe was more robust than in the U.S. More recently, Russell Shorto wrote over the weekend in The New York Times Magazine about how despite his initial shock at the high tax rates in the Netherlands, he's since come to love the European welfare state.
Shorto saw some downsides, for example, "a cultural tendency not to stand out or excel" that he deemed "the very antithesis of the American ideal of upward mobility."
But what about that ideal? There's a considerable tension, as Ezra Klein points out, between America's strong belief in social mobility and the reality that we don't have very much of it. A recent Brookings/Pew report showed that in the U.S., 69 percent of the population agrees that "people get rewarded for intelligence and skill." That's the highest of the 25 countries they surveyed. However, the same report showed that there is less economic mobility in the U.S. than in virtually any other developed nation: "Germany is 1.5 times more mobile than the United States, Canada nearly 2.5 times more mobile, and Denmark three times more mobile." Only the U.K. clocks in with slightly less mobility than the U.S.
It turns out that the European welfare state isn't just a nice way to lend a helping hand. It does much more to promote intergenerational upward mobility than does an American positive attitude and a culture of achievement. The three most mobile countries in the survey were Denmark, Norway, and Finland—Scandinavian social democracies with cradle-to-grave public services. Four- and five-year-olds in Finland, for example, mostly attend high-quality publicly subsidized preschools irrespective of income, with poor children and rich children getting education that's of equal quality. In the U.S., good center-based child care costs over $10,000 a year—beyond the reach of many parents. Consequently, we have class stratification already in place on the first day of kindergarten. The situation isn't helped by the fact that our system sends the least-experienced, least-qualified teachers to the poorest schools. Nor by the fact that to grow up in a poor neighborhood in the United States means not only to grow up with humble homes, but to grow up in a dangerous environment. Europeans can avail themselves of excellent public transportation while Americans too poor to own a car suffer from crippling social and economic disadvantages, and European citizens from all walks of life can enjoy basically similar levels of health care.
It's true that on the flipside we've created the best place in the world to be rich. Our tax code is progressive, but the overall rates are low. So not only does a rich person have enough left in his pocket to buy time at a nice preschool for his kids, but he can know that the preschool is better than what other people are getting. And who doesn't want to give their family a leg up? Private school or a big house in an expensive town with good public schools has much the same effect. Throw in a lack of public funding for campaigns so that politicians are dependent on your largesse, and you've got it made.
This doesn't, however, work out all that well for the rest of us. The U.S. has spent a huge portion of its history as the richest nation on earth, largely thanks to the highest levels of educational attainment in the world. We're so accustomed to that status, in fact, that there's little awareness that it's anything other than a natural part of the universe. But while the U.S. remains richer than most European countries, our educational lead has slipped away and there's good reason to believe that average living standards are now higher in the Netherlands and Scandinavia. But Americans cling to the idea that inequality and sky-high child-poverty rates are the price we have to pay for the social mobility we crave. In fact, the reverse is true—those are the very things that have made the United States an unusually class-stratified society.
Right now, all these facts are obscure. But if the right wants to have this debate, people will learn more about the not-so-dark continent and I think they'll like what they see.
Matthew Yglesias is a fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. He is the author of Heads in the Sand: How the Republicans Screw Up Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Screws Up the Democrats.
John Talks Joe
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
Geithner's Stock Plummeting
Jeff Madrick is a contributor to the New York Review of Books and a former economics columnist for the New York Times. He is editor of Challenge Magazine, visiting professor of humanities at Cooper Union, and senior fellow at the New School's Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. He is the author of Taking America, The End of Affluence (Random House) and The Case for Big Government.
Step Up to the Plate, China
Matthew Yglesias is a Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. He is the author of Heads in the Sand: How the Republicans Screw Up Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Screws Up the Democrats.
Next Battle for Health Care
Matthew Yglesias is a Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. He is the author of Heads in the Sand: How the Republicans Screw Up Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Screws Up the Democrats.
Defending a Bomb-Thrower
Matthew Yglesias is a Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. He is the author of Heads in the Sand: How the Republicans Screw Up Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Screws Up the Democrats.
Universal healthcare will also spur entrepreneurship as people will not be tied to jobs with good health insurance. I predict a new spring for startups once we get single-payer and people can go off on their own with one less thing hanging over their heads.
Easy, just end the tax incentives for employers to provide insurance.
And the whole notion of insurance is absurd anyhow. There is no incentive to comparison shop. Note that cosmetic surgery has seen costs decline while overall health costs have exploded. Insurance should only be needed in catastrophic cases.
When you are living on mininum wage, a visit to the doctor's office is catastophic.
What rubbish. Canadian healthcare is so meager in its coverage that everyone must pay for additional insurance to make up the difference. Further, healthcare is supplied by the provinces and IS NOT PORTABLE. In other words, you move out of province, and you lose your insurance, the additional insurance must be repurchased and the provincial system requires you to reapply and wait out their application period. Some provinces, notably Quebec will not even pay for your care if you get sick or have an accident while on a business trip outside the province so you muct buy extra insurance there as well. At this time, if you move, you have absolutely no chance of a doctor accepting you as a new patient because they are swamped. You have no choice but a hospital emergancy room if they will take you. A family member was turned away from emergancy in Toronto because they were too crowded. HE WAS HAVING A HEART ATTACK. Be careful what you wish for.
Arguments like Kateliz's always amaze me.
Many countries have socialized medicine and much of it is good. A few countries (Britain, Ireland) have crappy socialized medicine.
Since we have the opportunity of starting from scratch we can assess all the plans and take the best ideas.
With the Kateliz thinking plan if she went to the grocery store to buy canned vegetables and her favorite brand wasn't on sale she would leave the store without any groceries at all--or buying some dented cans from the clearance bin.
Just because you personally can't weigh options and make a decent decision doesn't mean others are not capable.
THINK!!! Use the brain God gave you.
Kate-
That was a family member?
I've heard the Toronto
Heart attack story
Used many times.
Why assume that
We have to use the
Canadian model?
There are many successful
Universal Health care
Systems in first
World countries
Around the globe.
Everyone has one but us.
At least
Canadians have
The option to upgrade
From their
Primary care.
47 MILLION
Americans have
No primary care.
Do only
Ferengis deserve
To see
Doctors?
Or do I smell a
Vested
Interest?
This complete and utter BS. Canadians typically get additional insurance for dental coverage and travel outside of the country. Health care is a provincial responsibility, but it is absolutely portable. It's a provision of the Canada Health Act that if you are visiting a different province, you can receive full health care if needed. If you move, you will be covered by your old province for up to three months; in the meantime, you get yourself a health card in your new province, which is very easy to do. Everything you say about the need to purchase and repurchase insurance is false, because one DOES NOT need to purchase health insurance in Canada. I'm sorry to hear about your family member, but that case sounds highly unusual -- and, forgive me, sounds a bit like an urban legend. It is true that there are waiting lists for certain procedures, but people requiring urgent care are given service in a timely manner.
I'm a Canadian, and I know of what I speak. I'm glad I don't have to make decisions about what jobs I will take, or whether I will pursue further education, based on what kind of health insurance I will receive.
Ritarita, I always enjoy your replies. I agree. I want names and dates for these stories of how awful care supposedly is in Canada. And do you know what else is interesting? Canada's maternity leave is amazing. Look it up.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
one problem with the cradle-to-grave mentality...Who will pay for it? Wealth has become the enemy. but wealth is good..Greed is evil..Wealth creates jobs, increases income, increases productivity and prosperity, inspires inventivness and entrepeneurship. If you take away wealth, you take away growth..Speaking frankly, no person with wealth will continue funding government growth unless there is a return,,,So wealthy people will leave the U.S. for a more lucrative future...Leaving the labor class to pay for socialism...
Absolutely. Wealth is not the enemy - greed is.
Socialism is not an all-or-nothing package. There is a gradient from 100% private property to 100% public property, with capitalism being center-right and socialism being center-left. It's not like if we raise upper-income tax brackets back to Clinton levels then all the rich will flee to China (which is one of the few stable places on earth more laissez faire than the US). Frankly, as long as we are marginally more capitalistic than our lifestyle competitors (Europe, maybe Japan), the rich will stay put in America. Life is a game of margins, and even with all of the spending going on we'll still be more competitive than any other developed country.
I know a family from the Netherlands who moved to the US. They recently shipped their daughter back because college is free there, if you're a citizen.
I have a son nearing college age. I would like to ship my son over there with her. But I can't.
Taxes are the rent you pay for living in a prosperous nation. You get what you pay for. They pay more taxes. They get more services. I would LOVE it if the US could get it together enough to figure out how to be more European, in terms of caring for its people.
I'm not concerned with the need of the rich to secure their God-given right to be way more rich than me. Clearly the rich don't care what happens to me, right?
I imagine the taxes Europeans pay are equal to the insurance premiums, dental care costs, and out-of-pocket medical costs we all shoulder individually. At any rate, Europe seems satisfied with the system. You don't seem them demonstrating to go back to the way things were before. You don't hear them complaining.
You don't see them taking out a second mortgage to pay for their child's college tuition, then losing the house when it goes into default.
So yeah. If you call the cure "socialism" I'll still take it. I'll take it if you call it "Bob." Its name doesn't matter, just the results. Essentially you can label it "Peace of Mind."
Now we're going to hear from all the people who think healthcare in Europe is a nightmare. They'll mostly be folks who have never been there. Are there a few awful stories from their system? Of course. There are a heck of a lot more in ours.
Connie,
You said it. What about the video of the woman dying on the floor in the waiting area of a hospital (for what was it, four hours?) while someone mopped the floor around her?
How about the time a father had to call an ambulance because the hospital emergency room wouldn't provide care to his dying baby for hours and hours? He had the ambulance come to the hospital, thinking a paramedic might give her some care, or perhaps get her admitted. She died anyway. Too late.
What about those videos of hospitals dumping indigent patients in the slums, still in their hospital gowns?
This is what the anti-socialist ranks want to perpetuate. This is the care they want for us because THEY have all the care THEY need (and that's really the important thing...).
Connie: I've been there....seen it...and it scares the hell out of me. I took a sick Brit friend to the ER and sat in a hallway with every sicko imaginable..for what seemed like an eternity...the care they received was minimal at best...and my friend stayed sick for quite some time. I'm a retired medical professional that has served in Americas' military and civilian hospitals. There is no comparison...we have the best care in the world.
shortcourse-
WE do not have
The best care
In the world.
Speak for yourself.
47 Million people
Have NO care
At all.
Prove it. Show me how many more horror stories there are here. Your annecdotal stories are really not worth much. I've lived in Europe for a long time. I love the culture and the people but absolutely abhor the European-style welfare state.
President Obama made $2.75 million last year..does he care what happens to you?
President Obama is the one pushing for Universal health care and other programs that would not only help the US but make us a better Nation. So yes not only do i think he cares about us but i truly think he loves us. It's not his fault that he wrote a book that millions of people bought and read.
He also is entitled to be treated at one of the best hospitals in the world. The National Naval Medical Center at Bethesda Md. He also has a personal physician on staff at the White House!
I don't think I'm on his Christmas card list or anything, but I'm convinced he cares about the American people (ALL of them) more than a President has in a good long while. What's really wrong with trying to narrow the gap in classes a little? If we actually start educating our children all the same way and giving them comparable health care won't we actually then be the nation we think we are in that anyone who is born here or comes here, preferably under legal circumstances, truly then has the same opportunity as everyone else?
Furthermore, every good government has certain aspects of socialism. Fact. Can you imagine if total laissez faire capitalism were to take place? That's a world where you'd get a bill from the privatized local police department you had to call when the uneducated poor kids from the other side of town broke into your car to jack your stereo. In that scenario I hope you'd have bought a Chrysler. Your warranty would no longer be valid. But you're right. President Obama probably took the pay cut so he could be President and up his book sales for after he leaves office. I'll buy those too.
Basically you want to use the government to extract resources from others to fund your desired services. Europeans live in smaller houses than us, have smaller cars, make less money, eat out less and generally have less stuff. they are materially poorer. Their quality of dental care is worse. A lot of the social stats are skewed because of the fact that we attract a lot of immigrants who tend to be poor. Put Mexico next door to Sweden and see what happens. And yes, I am familiar with the continent having lived in 3 European countries.
I am disgusted by the rampant consumerism oozing from your comment. European's have smaller houses and less stuff? Does that make them less happy? Does size and stuff equate happiness? You say smaller cars like bigger cars are better. What's wrong with smaller cars? Please, tell me why you need a huge, gas-guzzling, ugly SUV and a massive house to be satisfied? Over-compensation is the only reason I can come up with as to why one might need these things to be happy. Please, do respond. I would love to hear you justify this.
Which countries? I'm betting you never lived in France, Germany, or any Scandinavian countries.
grabowcp,
Clearly, Sweden was not one the countries you lived in. They are one of the largest destinations for immigrants in the world. And you should know that they have taken in more total (not percentage-wise!) refugees from the Iraq war than the US. Ben (Phd candidate w/ minor in Scandinavian studies)
Grabowcp: agreed. And Europe is not the bastion of liberalism and love. We ought to be honest with ourselves - everybody is out to get their own. The French, Germans, and Swedes all have large nationalist, anti-immigrant movements. These people don't have a great love for humankind. They are just as self-interested as most people are.
Uhm, I live in Norway, neighbour to Sweden, and I dont know if you have heard about the fall of the Iron Curtain? Currently the scandic economies are employing huge amounts of polish workers, and is dealing with russian and other robber capitalists and mafya types, just like you have across the border in Mexico. But the social-democratic model is actually working out quite well with that regard: Due to the strong social regulation, finding illegal work is very hard for illegal aliens. If a company wishes to hire foreign workers, they must pay the tarrifs negotiated by the unions and the leaders of industry, or risk being fined.
On the health-system, y`all seem to forget that privatized healthcare isnt illegal over here, just expensive. The states healthguarantee allows you to shop around for treatment, and if a norwegian ospital doesnt have it, you can get the operations covered, or partly covered, by the state on a scale-rate basis.
As for smaller houses and less stuff, I guess the question is how the trailer park to ranch-ratio is. A common norwegian reaction to travelling through the US is the general material low standard and the lack of electronic and computized infrastructure. Shit, you still use chequebooks.
You say, "Clearly the rich don't care what happens to [you], right?" Maybe not. But I'd bet a hundred dollars that you really don't care what happens to them, either.
namedujour,
I couldn't have said it any more succinctly than you did. And yeah, you can call me a "socialist," but you'd be wrong.
And quite frankly, I've long since grown tired by the "Red Scare" crap that is leveled against those who believe that healthcare is a RIGHT and not a PRIVILEGE.
I am in complete agreement, Mr. Yglesias. We need more articles like this in the media. Fight the Right America. We are becoming a Banana Republic, in order to keep Joe the Plumber's dream alive. The ideologues have lost. Bring on the socialism. Did you see the John Stewart piece where Wyatt went to Stockholm? Thanks Matthew, thanks Daily Beast, keep 'em coming.
Indeed we are. Bailouts, the President firing a CEO and rewarding favored political constituencies in bankruptcy proceedings, a rising tide of public sector red ink. It's unbelievable. That's what you meant, right?
I think the term "Socialist" really hits home now. It was mentioned during the campaign when the President slipped by saying "spread the wealth around." We are seeing that now to some degree. Having Chrysler declare bankruptcy and then engineering the reconstruction to include the UAW as 55% owners of Chrysler. Why not have the workers of AIG, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, etc. (tellers, salesman, clerks, receptionists, adjusters, etc.) become 55% owneres of those companiessince we propped them up with bailout money too?
Im sorry but us having to buy these companies is a prime example of whats wrong with Capitalism. Now when you can go to the doctors for free or actually have public transportation to get around; and dont have to rely on a car, then yes you can call us Socialist.
We didn't have to buy these companies. We should have let them fail. Companies fail in capitalism. It's a marked contrast to government where failure results in increased budgets (see: public education).
@grabowcp: If we let Chrysler and GM fail, it would affect the North American suppliers of Toyota and Ford, and their sales and fortunes by extension. The fortunes of each individual person and corporation affects every other.
The government *had* to step in because it was a matter of scale, yes its great that some companies fail, because their ideas were not marketable. People learn and move onto the next venture, its like a cell in the body dying off. What we were facing wasn't just a few cells here and there, it was entire industrial organs that were at risk. Without intervention, we could have been looking at the end of the automobile industry in the U.S.
We are looking at it... and the unions and the government regulations are holding the noose.
What's
Happening
Now
Is an explosion of
Unsustainablilty
In the land
Of the free
And the home of
The brave.
No country can survive
Without social
Safety nets
While a few thieves
Bilk it's population
And offshore
Most of it's
Wealth.
Ritarita, I tend to agree with some of what you say, but your constant linebreaks make it much more difficult to read what you're saying, so usually I just skip your posts. I suspect others do the same.
alux-
I skip a lot
Of posts too.
No reason to read
What you don't
Want to.
If you are young (obama's poll numbers) and not a socialist - you have no heart.
If you are an adult and are a socialist - you have no job.
How cute you found a quote that makes you look stupid. How about if you don't read history books, you will think you know everything and really know nothing.
And if you are an extremist, you have no brain.
perhaps the answer is to have only the children you can afford rather than a basket full and expect the state to care for them. seems pretty smart to me. children are not an entitlement.
Sadie,
You seem to assume that a child you think you can afford will be affordable. My daughter is schizophrenic. She is incurably ill, but will probably outlive me by 25 years. Because of her illness, and the side effects of the meds she takes, she will never be able to hold a job and support herself. My other two children are fine, healthy and self-supporting. How, exactly, should I have planned for all this?
i don't understand why such a great nation, is literally waging a war on its middle class citizens..
it seems to me that the right preaches anti-socialism to those who would benefit from it most , what is the right so threatened by? decent healthcare and childcare? better educaiton?
Literally waging war? Literally?
Why does anyone think that the same government that has screwed up education and bankrupted social security and medicare going to do a bang up job with health care? How on earth does that make sense?
This user is no longer registered.
But we have welfare now? We are not talking about increasing payment amounts just the amount of people on it. Is it working? We also spend the most money on the schools in the poorest areas. Is that working. It is a problem of culture. Is your intent to help people to improve their situation or that of their children or to simply subsidize them?
What makes people think that the most money is spent on schools in the poorest areas? That is just a falsehood. And the welfare system we have here is merely a way of regulating the poor. It guarantees that we will have poor people simply so that we can have the rich. Yes, so we do subsidize the poor but for a reason.
There's
A lot of humor
In worrying that
School kids might
Be getting extras
While loopholes and
Subsidies to Corporations
Allow them to
Slink off with
Billions.
I wish I could laugh, my BP would definitely benefit.
I agree that Europe has some ideas to offer. We can start with school choice, like in Sweden. Or post office privatization like in Germany. Perhaps social security (partial) privatization as in Sweden and the UK. Lower corporate taxes. The introduction of a flat income tax.
All for it!
Oh, and citing the anecdote of Russell Shorto's experience -- really? A self-described Democrat goes to Amsterdam and decides he likes the welfare state, go figure. As long as we are swapping such tales though I have a Dutch friend who lives in Amsterdam and prefers NYC (where he spent 18 months living) -- does that make American capitalism better?
As for social mobility -- does that explain why all those immigrants were tearing through France torching cars?
This user is no longer registered.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpSxVdzQMW4
Yes, we are much better off now that the government is handling our money. And Obama wants to raise taxes, but he certainly doesn't want to pay for it himself. Watch this interview. The last time he actually faced tough questions (somewhat tough).
I know this is hard to take but waiting until you yourself become educated is the ONE sure way to be sure children your children have a fighting chance. all data points to this. there is a difference btw a safety net and a lifetime net that only holds people back in the long run.
Imagine if just one generation of people took the time to educate themselves before recreating themselves. Wow. then we might really spend our money on an evolving society not a stationary one in which high achievers must perpeturally hold up all the rest.
All the good schools with full time nanny care and health care and cradle to grave this and that won't make as much difference as one college educated mother over the age of 26 commited to raising her child in the best way possible.
this is the Social agenda we do need to push, even if the truth hurts.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
-Benjamin Franklin
Wanting to have health care for your kids provided by taxation isn't giving up liberty. You have misquoted a man who would have been blown away by modern medicine, and who invented the idea of government programs: Libraries and the Post Office.
hear hear
I'm not sure who this guy is but I would bet he has never actually run a company in America. He apparently believes that you can continue to soak the productive class and they will continue to display the same ambition. His essay is typical of pseudo-intellectuals who validate vague concepts with citations from "experts" (in this case all liberals). Not much in the way of original thought.
Had he ever studied the former Soviet Union he would find that socialism simply trades one privleged class for another. Has he never heard about private highway lanes for commissars? Private dachas (all confescated from former capitalists), private department stores and commissaries? Do you think Stalin waited in line to see a doctor? At least in America, you can work hard and join the upper class. Certainly, a compassionate government has an obligation to help the helpless, but not the lazy. When Europe adopted socialism its people became lazy. The world might be able to sustain itself with a lazy Europe because there is still an economic engine like America. If we don't want to be America anymore, the free market will create another one.
fly-
The free market
Has prevailed.
I'll tell you what's wrong with a welfare state - having lived on a Native American reservation for the majority of my childhood, I have nothing but disdain for the idea of a welfare state. The society out there is entrenched in poverty in spite of the fact that they all receive government checks. Their healthcare is sub-par, at best with 8 hour waits in the emergency room. And in case you hadn't heard, their family life is plagued by alcoholism, and welfare has done nothing but plunge them further and further into this state.
So don't pull the crap that it's worked in Europe so it's a good thing in the U.S. Empirical evidence shows that it's done nothing but damage.
Well, what do you think is the problem? The fact that they receive a check from the Government? Or do you think there may be other factors? Countries in Europe as discussed in the article are not considered welfare state. Here, welfare is designed as a payout to keep people down; there it is a social program for the benefit of all. There is a difference. Please reread.
@ella04: Right on
I think you raise some important points about the reservation system, points which nobody ever likes to talk about, but surely you know first-hand that the situation is more complicated than "see, all welfare states are bad." There are many legal, social and even environmental issues which must be addressed or at least acknowledged before anything will improve on the reservations. I really do appreciate that you bring up these issues. Honest, insightful analysis is needed in this arena. But to sum it all up by saying that the Native American reservations have anything in common with European social democracies is disingenuous, and allows the injustice you decry to perpetuate unchecked.
I go for it when everyone in government recieve the same coverage no matter there pay ,if kennedy would have been in england he would have been put on a three year waiting list. And another thing there will be no pay for service for anyone I don't give a damn who you are so Matthew you be first in line .
some folks have -o- horse since they want to tell everyone how they should live there lifes while exempting them selves .
Of course the young love Obama. The younger generation is one of entitlement. What is in it for me? Getting something for little effort. That is exactly what Obama is after. He doesn't care about you people! Get real! He cares about one thing and that is votes. He cares about his second term and that is why he panders to the poor, the unions, the pro-choice people because those people will vote for him. He pandered to the young because he knew that they either knew very little about politics or knew very little about socialism and what it entailed/entails. He ran a very dishonest campaign. He failed to mention that he would be redistributing the wealth. If not for the slip of the tongue, it never would have come out at all. We will have crappy healthcare. The government will decide if and when you get treatment if any at all. The government will decide when your time is up and what age you can live to.
Wake up, people. Obama does NOT care about you. He only cares about his second term. If you want to know how wonderful socialism is, ask someone who came here to escape it. Remember, sleeping in, not working and living off of the government comes with a price and that price is your freedom.
Change is definitely coming and it isn't quite as pretty as Obama painted it.
Just look at the mortgage entitlement plan and what that has done to our economy. Socialism does NOT work. Wake up!
@ Ritarita: I love your insight. Keep up the good work!
We already live in a WELFARE STATE.....
It just goes to the top 1%. 477 BILLION after Bush's 2002 tax break.
&
5 billion a month in Iraq. 60 BILLION A YEAR.
&
130 Billion bailing out auto companies.
&
4 TRILLION for bailing out banks.
&
850 Billion to date for Afganistan.
&
Billions for Pakistan.
&
Billions for Subsidised Farming.
&
Billions for Emergency visits by the un insured.
But we want to spend 90 to 100 BILLION a year on keeping people healthy......
SAD....
Imagine socialism taking over the U.S.
Do Americans want 535 people
(Congress) DICTATING how 300 MILLION
citizens live their lives, what they CAN say,
and what salary they NEED to accept?
So far the government has taken over
the banking industry, the auto industry,
and soon the healthcare industry.
Maybe the government will take over the
media and tell you what you can and
cannot write, or what
you can or cannot say.
Maybe you'll be sent to a "special school"
where you'll be "re-educated"
on your "free expressions."
Here's one example of freedom of speech in Sweden.
In 2004
the Rev. Ake Green, the pastor of a Swedish Pentecostal church in Kalmar, Sweden, was prosecuted in January for "hate speech against homosexuals" for a sermon he preached citing Biblical references to homosexuality.
Sweden has a "hate crimes" law that forbids criticism of homosexuality.
In England this year
The British government denied entry to Geert Wilders, the Dutch parliamentarian, who was scheduled to show his 15-minute film about Islam, Fitna, which intersperses selected excerpts from the Koran with clips showing violent acts by radical Islamists. Nazir Ahmed, a Muslim member of the House of Lords who was born in Pakistan, raised a hue and cry. The British Foreign Ministry collapsed and kicked Wilders out as soon as he got off the plane. He was, the British border agency said, a threat to harmony and public security.
Is this what we want for the United States?
This is pretty extreme paranoia here, sophia5. I have generated hypothetical scenarios in my comments but generally when they're this polarized, I throw in something that would illustrate to the reader that I'm not serious and actually entertain no notions of it ever coming to fruition. No where in your comment did I see anything like that, so I assume you're actually terrified that the commies are on your shores and about to send you to a camp of some sort. That's easily enough dealt with; We're not Sweden or the U.K. Pol Pot hasn't been elected to office in the U.S. and any idea of a red scare is a ridiculous inkling.
What's not so easily dealt with is that it's all black and white with some people. We're either going to be a completely de-regulated capitalist country or we're going to be The United States Socialist Republic. It's a little more complex than that. If we look at governmental aspects from around the world more like a tree of ideas than one collective good or bad idea there's a lot we can learn. What's worked well in one country may work well here and so what if it's a more progressive idea than a conservative one? Does it serve the people of that country well? If the answer is yes, then we should consider it. This being the United States of America, we're not going to lose our freedom of speech regardless of how badly the previous administration tried to trample our constitution. Our people won't accept it. I won't have it and I'll be with them. Our people won't be told how much they're allowed to make and you won't be re-educated at gun point. The only re-education I'd recommend to you is learning the temperament of the American people and how staunchly we treasure our civil liberties. Our country has a long history of protecting those. Where it could do better are in the areas the author did a good job of illustrating. We can do better for educating our children and making university more affordable. We can do better at caring for our sick and hurt. Our far right seems to think that both of those areas as nothing more than industry. I find that to be flat wrong. When it comes to our children, public education, and public health that we capitalize on the front end as opposed to where we should be capitalizing on the back end by having a well educated, healthy work force.
Well said.
You make good points, and no I'm not worried
about commies on our shores, but it does
give one pause when government takes
control of two of the biggest industries in this
country.
I hate the phrase " Too Big to Fail. "
If a private company is poorly managed, let them fail.
Look what happened to the car industry.
We were told they're too big to fail, they were
bailed out by taxpayers,
yet they still declare bankruptcy.
What's up with that?
Nobody's bailing out the rest of us.
Do we really want government controlling private industry?
I'm all for oversight . . . not control.
None of us can be sure if this country is headed
for a Euro style government / economy, but the
two examples of Sweden and England should
send chills through anyone who believes in
freedom of speech, no matter how offensive,
whether it offends people on the left, right, or middle.
This user is no longer registered.
Are you serious? I wonder if the current weirdness in Washington is due to past and possibily present drug use. We know that its biggest cheerleaders in the media certainly used drugs.
What the left fails to realize is if you keep chasing away the job creators through more regulation, fees, and taxes they will simply move or quit producing. (See California for the best example of this, tax collections down 7.3 billion this year!) They just assume businesses will keep employing YOU while their costs go up. There are no easy answers to insuring all that need it but to me a good start would be tort reform and quit allowing illegals access to our emergency rooms.
There is simply no proof of that. Cali is different because its a state. Moving out of state is easy, moving to another country has much larger consequences. Many EU countries have high taxes and have not seen such issues. Also, personal tax and corporate tax are 2 different items. Linked but still distinct.
There is simply no proof at the end of the day that higher taxes and greater amt of social welfare result in decreased production. The benefits (greater mobility, better assurance = higher investments etc etc) could very well even out and compensate for possible harms.
Ur reasoning sounds logical at first, but its way too simplified and overgeneralized.
Oh, you silly boy, EVERYTHING is wrong with the "welfare state". EVERYBODY knows that. Capitalism made America the great land of opportunity, let's fight to keep it! Everyone in the world still wants what we have. I don't recall anyone ever attempting to swim to Cuba to from the U.S. do you?
All of my friends from other countries LOVE the U.S., especially our superior health care, lower taxes, greater opportunities, etc. We truly are the luckiest people on the planet!
Patriotism rocks!
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.