Support NeoGAF

[The Albatross]

yawn.

So we have like 30 posts a month that are about how Europe is better than America, or this European country is better than the US, and so on and so forth.

So question --

When are the people posting this going to wake up and realize that their criticism of overly-nationalistic Americans is actually a better description of yourselves than it is Americans?

Hypocrites.

 

[The Technomancer]

yawn.

So we have like 30 posts a month that are about how Europe is better than America, or this European country is better than the US, and so on and so forth.

So question --

When are the people posting this going to wake up and realize that their criticism of overly-nationalistic Americans is actually a better description of yourselves than it is Americans?

Hypocrites.

Er...what? I openly admit that I love this country and that I want to be "proud" of this country. That's why I want things to improve here, rather then just move to Europe

 

[HarryHengst]

While I don´t disagree with the statement to tax the rich more (I think everyone should be taxed a bit more) the Rich already pay a giant amount of the current help to the poor. I think much of it is that its the middle class who are never touched and treated as a third rail.

No, they give a really small portion of what they 'earn' through exploiting the poor back. Thats not 'helping the poor'.

 

[radioheadrule83]

So the Rep congressman acknowledges that the US is falling behind in terms of upward mobility -- what exactly do his party propose to improve things? Everything I hear a Rep member say seems to go the other way and sound like it would only make things worse!

 

[HarryHengst]

So the Rep congressman acknowledges that the US is falling behind in terms of upward mobility -- what exactly do his party propose to improve things? Everything I hear a Rep member say seems to go the other way and sound like it would only make things worse!

No, you see, when you give rich people even more money it will magically trickle down and create jobd! Its just that they do not yet have enough money to start trickling down, so what America needs to do is lower the taxes even more for the rich and corporations. And of course raise taxes on the poor and slash anything left that is helping them, like schools and stuff. That will teach the poor to work hard, because when you work a lot of hours you will become rich (and catch a unicorn at the end of the rainbow)!

 

[Phoenician_Viking]

No, they aren't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_education
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_health

 

[el retorno]

No, they give a really small portion of what they 'earn' through exploiting the poor back. Thats not 'helping the poor'.

Rich people give more of their income than the middle class to the government. They also contribute I believe more than half of the federal taxes though I could be wrong

 

[HarryHengst]

Rich people give more of their income than the middle class to the government. They also contribute I believe more than half of the federal taxes though I could be wrong

When looking at percentages of their income they give less. Hell, poor people give a bigger part of their income to charity than rich people.

 

[Maleficence]

Rich people give more of their income than the middle class to the government. They also contribute I believe more than half of the federal taxes though I could be wrong

Rich people are living ridiculously luxurious lives, far beyond any sort of necessity. Whether or not all of this money was made through fair business practices, people living at this ridiculous level of comfort should be paying back a huge amount so that people who are struggling significantly simply to survive can get a bit of help.

It's a simple moral stance.

Taxing the super rich at 75% (using this as an extreme argument, not suggesting it) would not give them cause for concern in their lives, they could live their lives still ridiculously comfortably. For anyone making this level of money to complain about high taxation is just downright greedy to me.

Perhaps they would have to get a house with 14 rooms instead of 16, I'm sure they'd survive the downgrade though.

 

[JGS]

It's harder to be a self-made millionaire because most people work for employers and are happy with that. To be a self made millionaire is to be a risk taker.

Further, a person should not become a self-made millionaire unless they have something that makes them worth that.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

People who use words like freebies are being nothing more than intellectually dishonest. Some people are willing to pay taxes so that everyone in the country can enjoy a minimum level of services. Saying that these services caused what's happening in the EU is laughable. Go freak made a good post on the first page about it. I'd like to add that the Netherlands are slashing financial aid for university students. I'm assuming this will affect mobility rates and if politicians get their way will only lead to even greater cuts. The current plan concerning financial aid would save about 1 billion. Now, compare this to the multiple billions the government would save by getting rid of what are basically subsidies for houses worth a million and over and you can't help but cry. There are times when you can't turn on the news and not hear about how the Netherlands are the only country with this type of system and how it has basically ruined the housing market.

 

[el retorno]

Rich people are living ridiculously luxurious lives, far beyond any sort of necessity. Whether or not all of this money was made through fair business practices, people living at this ridiculous level of comfort should be paying back a huge amount so that people who are struggling significantly simply to survive can get a bit of help.

It's a simple moral stance.

Taxing the super rich at 75% (using this as an extreme argument, not suggesting it) would not give them cause for concern in their lives, they could live their lives still ridiculously comfortably. For anyone making this level of money to complain about high taxation is just downright greedy to me.

Perhaps they would have to get a house with 14 rooms instead of 16, I'm sure they'd survive the downgrade though.

I said I think the rich should have their taxes raised I was just arguing against the point that they give nothing. Because they do.

 

[JGS]

Taxing the super rich at 75% (using this as an extreme argument, not suggesting it) would not give them cause for concern in their lives, they could live their lives still ridiculously comfortably. For anyone making this level of money to complain about high taxation is just downright greedy to me.

Perhaps they would have to get a house with 14 rooms instead of 16, I'm sure they'd survive the downgrade though.

I agree it's a moral issue in that it is not moral to tax anyone substantially higher than everyone else. It's not anyone's place to say what someone can earn before being too much. Better social services can be paid for now with minor increases &/or removing wealthy people from some of those services. The government simply must learn to budget beyond snowballing.

 

[Maleficence]

I said I think the rich should have their taxes raised I was just arguing against the point that they give nothing. Because they do.

Who said that then?

As an aside,something they need to fix is tax loopholes which allow corporations to pay no federal taxes, and actually receive money in the form of tax credits. It's like they're taxing the government.

It's a ridiculous oversight which I am amazed has yet to be fixed.

 

[HarryHengst]

I said I think the rich should have their taxes raised I was just arguing against the point that they give nothing. Because they do.

I didnt say they give nothing, they give not enough. They would be giving enough once you start taxing them, say, 90% on everything above a million dollars, no matter how it's earned (so also on money earned on the stock market).

 

[Cynar]

Then why does Europe find it having to cut back more and more on their benefits? It seems all these great benefits where in the end unsustainable, thus requiring cuts, unless your Germany and can just lean on Greece and certain other Euro countries to prop up your exports.

Wasn't benefits that got them in trouble, it was American like capitalism in banking and housing.

 

[PhoncipleBone]

But upward mobility is the essence of the American Dream ™. Surely this article is wrong!

You know why they call it the American Dream? Because you have to be asleep to believe it. -George Carlin

 

[Ether_Snake]

TOLD YOU GUYS.

If want to fix the US economy, you need MUCH BETTER worker mobility.

This will lead to more people living outside the cities, but potentially working in or out of the cities.

This will lead to higher consumption as living outside of a city means sharing fewer services and higher needs for property.

This will fuel development outside the cities.

This will lower house prices in big cities, and raise them where they have fallen.

But nobody seems to get it.

 

[HarryHengst]

I agree it's a moral issue in that it is not moral to tax anyone substantially higher than everyone else. It's not anyone's place to say what someone can earn before being too much. Better social services can be paid for now with minor increases &/or removing wealthy people from some of those services. The government simply must learn to budget beyond snowballing.

It is when a few persons earning billions leads to millions of people suffering, as is happening right now in America.

 

[Maleficence]

I agree it's a moral issue in that it is not moral to tax anyone substantially higher than everyone else. It's not anyone's place to say what someone can earn before being too much. Better social services can be paid for now with minor increases &/or removing wealthy people from some of those services. The government simply must learn to budget beyond snowballing.

Bullshit. Money is limited, we can't just create it out of thin air. If some people get richer, other people must get poorer.

Look at places like Africa, poverty is enormous, now look at the banking millionaires.

Some people seem to have the idea that if someone is obscenely rich then that isn't hurting anyone. That is demonstrably untrue. Money passes hands and has to come from somewhere. This money starts in the populace, with poorer people and moves up the chain into the pockets of the rich. And it stays there or is circulated among the rich, it doesn't "trickle down" back to the poor. The rich don't allow it.

 

[JGS]

I didnt say they give nothing, they give not enough. They would be giving enough once you start taxing them, say, 90% on everything above a million dollars, no matter how it's earned (so also on money earned on the stock market).

I'm not sure how anyone could argue that 1% paying 40% isn't enough without simply giving the the remainder of the population no requirement to pay taxes.

These arguments always sound like there is something actually wrong with people making 1 million dollars a year which seems whacky unless you are poor.

 

[CrankyJay]

TOLD YOU GUYS.

If want to fix the US economy, you need MUCH BETTER worker mobility.

This will lead to more people living outside the cities, but potentially working in or out of the cities.

This will lead to higher consumption as living outside of a city means sharing fewer services and higher needs for property.

This will fuel development outside the cities.

This will lower house prices in big cities, and raise them where they have fallen.

But nobody seems to get it.

I'm not sure this is the mobility the article is referring to...you're talking about being to physical move outside of a city where the article is more about socio-economic mobility.

 

[el retorno]

Who said that then?

The problem at the top in the US is that they don't help the bottom.

.

 

[Maleficence]

.

Missed that, but it was a pretty vague way of saying that, I doubt he meant they literally give nothing in taxes.

 

[HarryHengst]

TOLD YOU GUYS.

If want to fix the US economy, you need MUCH BETTER worker mobility.

This will lead to more people living outside the cities, but potentially working in or out of the cities.

This will lead to higher consumption as living outside of a city means sharing fewer services and higher needs for property.

This will fuel development outside the cities.

This will lower house prices in big cities, and raise them where they have fallen.

But nobody seems to get it.

No, what is needed to fix the US economy is the return of the middle class. What is needed to fix the economy is to increase the income of the bottom 90%. Those are the people who spend pretty much all their money, which is what drives the economy. THe rich hoard money like some compulsion, and money that is gettnig hoarded is what makes the economy stop.

The problem right now is that America, thanks to the 1% and their wealth (which is being used to buy political power to make more money), has created a vicious circle. Most people's wages haven't really grown in years, which leads to them spending less and less, which leads to companies making less money, which leads to unemployment, people having less money etc. It has been delayed for a few decades with credit and debt and housing bubbles and such, but now it is all coming down.

Basically, corporations have forgotten one of the lessons even Henry Ford understood: you got to have people able to buy your products. In their greed they wanted even the last bit of money from the population, and now they are surprised when people arent able to buy anymore stuff and we are in a crisis which isnt fixable.

 

[CrankyJay]

No, what is needed to fix the US economy is the return of the middle class. What is needed to fix the economy is to increase the income of the bottom 90%. Those are the people who spend pretty much all their money, which is what drives the economy. THe rich hoard money like some compulsion, and money that is gettnig hoarded is what makes the economy stop.

The problem right now is that America, thanks to the 1% and their wealth (which is being used to buy political power to make more money), has created a vicious circle. Most people's wages haven't really grown in years, which leads to them spending less and less, which leads to companies making less money, which leads to unemployment, people having less money etc. It has been delayed for a few decades with credit and debt and housing bubbles and such, but now it is all coming down.

Basically, corporations have forgotten one of the lessons even Henry Ford understood: you got to have people able to buy your products. In their greed they wanted even the last bit of money from the population, and now they are surprised when people arent able to buy anymore stuff and we are in a crisis which isnt fixable.

p.s. I agree with you.

 

[HarryHengst]

I'm not sure how anyone could argue that 1% paying 40% isn't enough without simply giving the the remainder of the population no requirement to pay taxes.

These arguments always sound like there is something actually wrong with people making 1 million dollars a year which seems whacky unless you are poor.

Just check the state of your nation. It is not enough and they are destroying your country with their wealth instead of fixing it.

And yes, making more than a million dollars (which is an arbitrary number, yes) is disgusting when you have people in your nation who are *this* close to literally starving to death. It is disgusting when you have people needing to work 2 fulltime jobs to even make ends meet. It is disugsting when you have millions of people who cannot even afford medical insurance and are basically just waiting to die from an easily preventable medical condition. But no, lets pretend those people who make millions are so generous and amazing that they are willing to pay taxes!

 

[Seraphinianus]

Er...what? I openly admit that I love this country and that I want to be "proud" of this country. That's why I want things to improve here, rather then just move to Europe

I'd like to know how many people who spout the "europe is amazing, the U.S. is a dust bowl where everyone owns guns" shit have actually spent time in the U.S. or if the Americans who hate their own country have spent time in Europe.

Both have their own sets of problems. Life will not be automatically easier in either place and both are great. Plus, europe is huge and the U.S. is even bigger, so I'm not sure why the broad continent comparisons are even made in the first place. i.e. bad cops in LA = America is fukked

 

[ThisWreckage]

The U.S. is now the land of lesser opportunities. It's why you're seeing more and more people leaving the country.

 

[Choke on the Magic]

It's sad you guys are having so much trouble with this, then again that is the downside of all the freebies and entitlements you had.

They've probably never heard the term "living off the fat of the land".

 

[JGS]

Bullshit. Money is limited, we can't just create it out of thin air. If some people get richer, other people must get poorer.

Look at places like Africa, poverty is enormous, now look at the banking millionaires.

Some people seem to have the idea that if someone is obscenely rich then that isn't hurting anyone. That is demonstrably untrue. Money passes hands and has to come from somewhere. This money starts in the populace, with poorer people and moves up the chain into the pockets of the rich. And it stays there or is circulated among the rich, it doesn't "trickle down" back to the poor. The rich don't allow it.

This is not true. Good economies always increase wealth just not for everyone nor consistently which was never promised. Wealth by itself creates jobs as there are few tightwads out there holding onto their cash without it leaking into the economy.

Comparing the numerous problems of Africa to the wealthy in Europe & US makes little sense. If countries were set up as Africa is, they would be in the exact same boat as many of those countries. Fortunately most countries are not run like a huge pawn shop. It's not like the squatters that take over & rob rich farms have actually helped the continent anyway.

I also have no idea where this premise come from that rich people do not make other people rich. Nearly every industry would suffer from a 75% tax rate for rich people- assuming no loopholes exists. If the loopholes remain, it would barely increase revenues and ensure the change back to sensible rates by the next election cycle.

 

[ronito]

I love it when people when faced with facts that point at problems with america counter with "B...bu...but America is just so big! Of course it can't compete!!"

 

[HarryHengst]

The U.S. is now the land of lesser opportunities. It's why you're seeing more and more people leaving the country.

Posted this in another topic a while ago:

Americans leaving US in record numbers

TAGS: History, USA, Employment, Economy
Ever dream of leaving it all behind and heading out of America? You’re not the only one. A new study shows that more US citizens than ever before are living outside of the country.
According to statistics from the US State Department, around 6.4 million Americans are either working or studying overseas, which Gallup says is the largest number ever for such statistic.

The polling organization came across the number after conducting surveys in 135 outside nations and the information behind the numbers reveal that this isn’t exactly a longtime coming either — numbers have skyrocketed only in recent years. In the 24 months before polling began, the number of Americans between the ages of 25 and 34 living abroad managed to surge from barely 1 percent to over 5.1 percent. For those under the age span wishing to move overseas, the percentage has jumped in the same amount of time from 15 percent to 40.

While the United States of America was at one point (and largely still is) a magnet for foreigners in search of work, the statistics makes it clear that an opposite trend is quickly picking up steam.

"There's a feeling among more entrepreneurial Americans that if you really want to get anything done, you have to get out of country and away from the depressing atmosphere," Bob Adams of America Wave tells Reuters. “There's a sense of lost direction, so more people are looking for locations that offer more hope about the future."
Many of those leaving the US have job skills that would transfer quite well in the American market. Instead, however, they chose to bring those out of the States, attracted instead to opportunities elsewhere.

While America offers some employment opportunities unmatched outside of the United States, the country has also seen dire economic statistics since the dawn of the Obama administration, with jobless benefit claims soaring in recent months, and only last week did the Department of Labor reveal an unemployment statistic below 9 percent. On the contrary, the number of Americans that want full-time work and have given up on finding it or unable to locate it is closer to double that figure, while at the same time many of America’s largest employers have outsourced positions across the globe. Banking giant Goldman Sachs announced earlier this year that in the wake of a recession, they would finally be creating 1,000 new positions, yet making them available only to workers in Singapore. Other industries, significantly American, have been relocated as well; the ending of NASA’s space shuttle program this year left many intelligent US citizens with little choice but to continue in their field outside of the States.

“We’ve pretty much outsourced everything else,” aerospace technician Giovanni Pinzon tells RT. He was left scrambling for a job after years working in America’s space program.
America Wave’s Adams adds to Reuters that the statistics prove surprising to him, but noted that it doesn’t exactly make sense to think that it is a fluke.
“They're looking for work because of the sluggish economy, and they've lost confidence that the U.S. is going anywhere,” says Adams.

You are losing young, well-educated people because there are no jobs for them.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

They've probably never heard the term "living off the fat of the land".

Tell me about the rabbits, George.

 

[ThisWreckage]

Posted this in another topic a while ago:





You are losing young, well-educated people because there are no jobs for them.

Absolutely, thank you for the article. I know people that live in New Zealand, China, India, and Canada right now. They have no intention of moving back. These are educated, young people.

 

[WARCOCK]

It's sad you guys are having so much trouble with this, then again that is the downside of all the freebies and entitlements you had.

For the fucking 100th time.


http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/no-its-not-the-welfare-state/

The awful implementation of the european union is what is mainly causing the crisis not the nature of the welfare state.

Will you shut the fuck up now?

 

[JGS]

Just check the state of your nation. It is not enough and they are destroying your country with their wealth instead of fixing it.

And yes, making more than a million dollars (which is an arbitrary number, yes) is disgusting when you have people in your nation who are *this* close to literally starving to death. It is disgusting when you have people needing to work 2 fulltime jobs to even make ends meet. It is disugsting when you have millions of people who cannot even afford medical insurance and are basically just waiting to die from an easily preventable medical condition. But no, lets pretend those people who make millions are so generous and amazing that they are willing to pay taxes!

The state of our nation has a lot to do with stupid decisions of the government- not how much money they have the ability to collect which is tons. Yet for some reason giving them more money will make things better? Doubtful.

They can live off the current haul, but could make things much better by removing the corporate "loopholes" (Corporate taxes are what allowed for a surplus in money the last time we had them) and actually penalizing when companies move to other countries in name only.

Heck, if the government wants to make a significant dent, removing the fake incentives on the rich, middle class, and poor. They don't need deductions for mortgage interest (Especially since many of them don't even need to own a house) or bonuses for having more kids. Both of these come in handy for me, but is a wasted perk.

 

[HarryHengst]

This is not true. Good economies always increase wealth just not for everyone nor consistently which was never promised.

But it was promised! The whole propaganda message of capitalism, on which the American Dream was based, was that, if you worked hard and went to college you would become perhaps not rich, but at least able to live a comfortable life. And now there are millions of young people who have huge debts because they did what society told them by going to college. They find out that there are no jobs, there is no way to pay of their debt and they are going to have to live a poorer life than their parents.

And the idea that capitalism can create wealth out of nothing is one of its problems, because it cant. You cannot build an economy based on the need of ever expanding wealth (capitalism crashes if it doesnt grow each and every single year) on a world with finite resources.

 

[Choke on the Magic]

Tell me about the rabbits, George.

Not surprising coming from someone who's too young to know what it's like to work your way up from the bottom.

 

[HarryHengst]

The state of our nation has a lot to do with stupid decisions of the government- not how much money they have the ability to collect which is tons. Yet for some reason giving them more money will make things better? Doubtful.

They can live off the current haul, but could make things much better by removing the corporate "loopholes" (Corporate taxes are what allowed for a surplus in money the last time we had them) and actually penalizing when companies move to other countries in name only.

Heck, if the government wants to make a significant dent, removing the fake incentives on the rich, middle class, and poor. They don't need deductions for mortgage interest (Especially since many of them don't even need to own a house) or bonuses for having more kids. Both of these come in handy for me, but is a wasted perk.

True, they could make it much better, probably even with the amount of revenue the US government now collects. I wont deny that (and it is not the reason i want rich people to be taxed a lot more).

However, the same people who manage corporations are the same people who are filthy rich and the same people who literally buy Congress to lower taxes and remove restrictions on corporations. They are the people who lobby for a day during which corporations can move their offshore money tax-free in the country, with vague promises of creating jobs. They are the people who actively oppose fixing loopholes, because they profit from them. That's the problem, and the reason why the government wont be able to do shit.

 

[Seraphinianus]

I love it when people when faced with facts that point at problems with america counter with "B...bu...but America is just so big! Of course it can't compete!!"

and you love this because...? is that your way of putting up an straw man? can you make a convincing argument about why the two should be compared 1:1? Do you believe that they should?

 

[JGS]

But it was promised! The whole propaganda message of capitalism, on which the American Dream was based, was that, if you worked hard and went to college you would become perhaps not rich, but at least able to live a comfortable life. And now there are millions of young people who have huge debts because they did what society told them by going to college. They find out that there are no jobs, there is no way to pay of their debt and they are going to have to live a poorer life than their parents.

This is what happens most of the time & if not happening now will happen again soon. It's inevitable. The debt is a different issue as it is voluntary and also a part of a capitalist market. So if you heard one part of the propaganda, you should have heard the other (Everyone knows it's a debt to be repaid).

However, you are mistaken about the capitalism message which promises nothing but an environment that states that if you have the moola, you will have your dream. Capitalism doesn't care whether you earn your money or inherited it, as long as you can afford the dream.

And the idea that capitalism can create wealth out of nothing is one of its problems, because it cant. You cannot build an economy based on the need of ever expanding wealth (capitalism crashes if it doesnt grow each and every single year) on a world with finite resources.

Of course it can't create it out of nothing since wealth values stuff (Investments aside, primarily poor and middle class buy into valueless things which is why we hear so many sob stories of them being snookered &/or broke). So if you don't have something someone wants than wealth won't be created. However, if a wealthy person wants it, they will pay for it- even above market price.

This is whether we're talking about a 100 million dollar yacht or a stupid looking Angry Birds hat. On topic but also as an aside, this is an amazing success story that confirms what capitalism is about. A .99 cent mobile game is now selling phone cases, hats, and who knows what else for 30 or 40+ bucks a pop. Who is buying that stuff?

The market crashing and rising is proof that capitalism is based on supply/demand pressures rather than on promises made.

True, they could make it much better, probably even with the amount of revenue the US government now collects. I wont deny that (and it is not the reason i want rich people to be taxed a lot more).

However, the same people who manage corporations are the same people who are filthy rich and the same people who literally buy Congress to lower taxes and remove restrictions on corporations. They are the people who lobby for a day during which corporations can move their offshore money tax-free in the country, with vague promises of creating jobs. They are the people who actively oppose fixing loopholes, because they profit from them. That's the problem, and the reason why the government wont be able to do shit.

I agree about influence. There shouldn't be any. However, that also means that no one should influence politicians out side of votes.

It was determined a long time ago that campaign contribution equated to free speech. Since corporations have opinions regarding their survival, it makes sense they should contribute. None of this should be the case though and all campaigning should be public only. This is impossible, so the next best option is full 100% disclosure of contributions.

 

[HarryHengst]

This is not true. Good economies always increase wealth just not for everyone nor consistently which was never promised. Wealth by itself creates jobs as there are few tightwads out there holding onto their cash without it leaking into the economy.

Comparing the numerous problems of Africa to the wealthy in Europe & US makes little sense. If countries were set up as Africa is, they would be in the exact same boat as many of those countries. Fortunately most countries are not run like a huge pawn shop. It's not like the squatters that take over & rob rich farms have actually helped the continent anyway.

I also have no idea where this premise come from that rich people do not make other people rich. Nearly every industry would suffer from a 75% tax rate for rich people- assuming no loopholes exists. If the loopholes remain, it would barely increase revenues and ensure the change back to sensible rates by the next election cycle.

Why would industries suffer from a 75% taxrate? Its a tax on profits or salary after a certain amount of income, not on revenue. As you can see now, the world economy cannot survive on the spending of the rich only, because while they have a lot of money they dont spend the same amount as a couple hundred million of regular people.

 

[ronito]

and you love this because...? is that your way of putting up an straw man? can you make a convincing argument about why the two should be compared 1:1? Do you believe that they should?

Nah. I totally agree in this day and age of technology geography is a perfectly good excuse for poor performance. Not like there's more resources with larger land or anything like that. I use it all the time with my kids. "What? Little Johny failed class? Yeah, well have you seen the size of my lawn?! He's up against kids that have a lawn that's just a fraction of the size of mine!"

 

[Lonely1]

No, they aren't.

Yes, they are.

 

[CornBurrito]

Did Manos' argument become "bootstraps!" despite the article in the OP showing that going from rags to riches is harder in the US than it is in Europe?

 

[that1dude24]

pretty much

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Did Manos' argument become "bootstraps!" despite the article in the OP showing that going from rags to riches is harder in the US than it is in Europe?

My point is in the end EuroBenefits are unsustainable. Americans not having been addictied to freebies and entitlements will handle the recession better in the end. Europeans will worse more so because those EuroBenefits will not be coming back

Germany will last a little longer though than the others.

The human rights thing was under US law that they are not basic rights.

 

[WARCOCK]

My point is in the end EuroBenefits are unsustainable. Americans not having been addictied to freebies and entitlements will handle the recession better in the end. Europeans will worse more so because those EuroBenefits will not be coming back

The human rights thing was under US law that they are not basic rights.

No. The united states may very well handle the recent recession better than europe but it's going to mainly be because our economy is not nearly as vulnerable to the issues caused by the eurozone project as (obviously) european economies. As opposed to the cultural ramifications resulting from the welfare state. Sorry, your ideological agenda won't be quite met.

 

[el retorno]

Absolutely, thank you for the article. I know people that live in New Zealand, China, India, and Canada right now. They have no intention of moving back. These are educated, young people.

I notice you didn´t say Europe. Because they´re leaving in droves too. Especially countries like portugal and Spain and I would assume France because there are quite a few places to go while still speaking the language. I still think it has to do more with growth. I think many of those people will come back to American (not your friends but those in his article) when growth especially job growth pick up again. I don´t know about Europe because I don´t really see how they start getting good growth rates anytime soon.


I will say Canada and New Zealand seem to have the best mix of the two diferent styles though obviously they have their problems too.