| sc94597 said: 1. More so than Europeans? I've realized that's a huge difference, which is substantiated by polls, between Americans and Europeans. Americans greatly appreciate individual liberty. Also I think it is unfair to say that Americans are entirely less socially oriented, it's just that we don't want to sacrifice our individual liberties for the greater good, but rather find other solutions to help the greater good. Many of the largest charities in the world are based in the United States, and the idea of mainting and supporting one's town is very strong in middle-america. 2. There must be a better way that doesn't infringe upon people's right to property and happiness. As a libertarian/classical liberal I think the option with the most freedom is always the best one. Also, as somebody on medicaid I think Obamacare is going to vastly decrease my chances to access sufficient healthcare, as most private practices will refuse me. But by then I plan to switch to a different, and private insurance anyway. A monpoly is never good, even if it is a government one. 3. I don't think this is true. Only a small minority want social democracy. Most people want to be left alone and for the federal government to mind its own business (interstate commerce, inernational commerce, etc.) 4. At what point is it too much though? They already spend 40%. I see that as too much. 5. Unemployment should remain temporary in my opinion. It acts as a deincentive, and I've seen it first hand (coming from the bottom 5%.) California gives out so much unemployment by the way ($425/week) and it also has one of the highest unemployment rates. Meanwhile my state - Pennsylvania - only gives out $98/week and it is a bit below-average (32.) 6. I think Australia is one country to look at, yep. Canada is another country I'd say is a bit similar to the U.S. Both have higher Index of Economic Freedom than the U.S as well. So it's certainly a good idea to look at these countries. But of course, there is a problem with our federal reserve that can't be ignored either and the government must stop it's fascist-like policies with big corporations and bail-outs. Our biggest problem is the depleting middle class. |
1. The thing is, most of the sorts of things we're talking about have nothing to do with individual liberties. The few exceptions, such as the "obamacare fine" thing, are a necessary evil. And what I find curious is that, in your response to my description of Australia's Medicare, you said it was a good idea and a solution to the Obamacare problem... and it has a Medicare Levy that is comparable to the Obamacare fine, except that everyone above a certain income has to pay it.
I'm sure that Americans like to give money to charities. But here's something you might not be aware of. According to the World Giving Index, Australia comes in highest, followed by New Zealand, Ireland, Canada, Switzerland, and then the US. Only 60% of Americans give to charity, compared with 70% of Australians. Something to think about.
2. As I said, the big irony is that you like the sound of Australia's Medicare system, but dislike Obamacare's no-insurance fine, despite the fact that Australia's Medicare system goes beyond a fine to a full-fledged tax on all who can afford it. Is your problem the fact that only those who don't buy private insurance have to pay it? Also, given your big-L Liberal positioning, I'm surprised that you're strongly in favour of a single-payer public healthcare system (that's what Medicare is) - in Australia, we call it "Bulk Billing".
Anyway, the point is that, for a proper public health option or universal healthcare to work, you must have a strong public health system - something that America doesn't have, right now. Hence why it's so hard when you're on Medicaid.
3. I think you misunderstood. Americans, like everyone else, want a strong education system, a strong health system, functional infrastructure (roads, rail, power lines, water pipes, etc), some sort of social safety net in case they lose their job, etc. But Americans don't want to pay for it. Research has shown that the people who most loudly condemn government benefits are also the ones who most use those benefits. They want to have their cake and eat it too.
4. 40% of GDP isn't especially high. This site shows general government total expenditure for 2010 by country. The US is listed at US$6 trillion, which is 40% of US$15 trillion. Australia is listed at AU$500 billion, which is about 33% of GDP. Canada is at just over 40% of GDP. Norway is nearly at 45% of GDP - and you'll note that Norway leads the world in many measures. Of course, Norway isn't perfect - it has high debt (not as high as US debt, but 50% of GDP is still high) and was in recession during 2009 (GFC hit it hard enough to do that for one year, but they're back to just under 2% per year growth). But they're running surpluses, enabling them to pay off their debt - despite government expenditure at 45% of GDP. Their unemployment rate is remarkably low, around 3.2%.
5. Unemployment benefits having time limits aren't even remotely an incentive to work. It just punishes those who lack the skills necessary to get a job in a strained economy such as what America is currently experiencing. As I pointed out, despite Australia not having a time limit on unemployment benefits, we have lower unemployment than America. The fact of the matter is, if a person can show that they've been seeking work (in Australia, you have to apply for 5 jobs a week to get unemployment benefits), they should be supported by the government. Note that this doesn't mean that there aren't welfare cheats. There certainly are. But they're a minority.
Note that America's unemployment rate only covers people who are on unemployment benefits, which means that anyone who has passed the 99 week limit is seen to disappear from the unemployment rate. So when comparing America with Australia, you actually have to raise America's rate further to make it align with Australia's in terms of definition.
6. Oh, the big corporate bailouts were an idiotic move by your government. Had they been smart, rather than bailing out the banks, they'd have bailed out the people who were in impossible mortgages. The banks would have been saved anyway, but the ordinary people wouldn't have experienced all of the foreclosures, etc. And then, with strong regulations to prevent the situation from happening again, things would have worked out well. And with many people suddenly no longer facing bankruptcy, the economy would have been saved. But it happened the way it happened, and now America has the task of fixing the system (re-instating Glass-Steagall would be a good first step).
Having said that, please don't use the term "fascist" to refer to what they did. Terms like that have very specific meanings, and the bailouts were not fascist in any way. It's as bad as confusing communism with socialism, or confusing socialism with national socialism (Nazism is nothing like Socialism).
