whoa there buddy do you mean under his system or teh curent one we have...

b/c right now more then half the kids in my wifes school meat or exceed teh pverty level and this year alone we have spent almost a grand out of our pocket to provide school supplies

so i know you cant be talking about the current system

You guys are funny

What you are talking about is called social market economy and it works. Just take a look at Europe.

Germany has (one of) the best social frameworks in the world and nobody complains about it. People get free medical care, social care if they lose their job and retirement pay and we're still alive. The same goes for most other EU countries. There are still people earning millions (and billions even) just that poor people don't die because of hunger or coldness. And yeah I think these are rights. Human rights even.

Louie -

Try such a social system in a country with 4 times the population, and a much different socio-economic makeup. It works in your country because you have a much different makeup than America.

The reason we argue the social market economy in America is because every phase that we've initiated (retirement, education) has failed abysmally. Our schools are worse than yours, and our pensions (I assume) do not earn near the interest yours do. I fail to see how adding other social programs is going to change their success rate in America.

You have very little immigration and your racial composition has Germans at a majority rate of 91.5%, with a decent bit of the 'other' consisting of immigrants from other highly developed nations (France, UK, Greece). America has twice the immigration rate per capita, and a much larger skewing from poor countries. So our problems are different.

I'm glad it works in your country. But given the American track record, I think we're in a different position and makeup that demands more private based solutions than government solutions.

Of course the US is in a way more difficult situation, I don't want to argue that. Sorry if my comment sounded like that, that wasn't my intention. I was rather pointing it out to some people who argued health care is not a right. The US was found on the believe that every human being has certain rights ("Life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness" is what I'm talking about of course) which I highly respect you for. What I wanted to point out was that denying health as a right and treating it like a privilegue is like saying you only deserve those rights under certain conditions, like being able to earn enough money to pay for your health care. Isn't health a necessary condition for your personal pursuit of hapiness?

In my mind it's the governments responsibility to provide equal chances for everyone, which includes health care, etc. I know I'm arguing from a european view but I think one should at least try to achieve those goals. I know you're in a way more difficult situation, though. Sorry if I was being a know-it-all.

I agree with you that adding other social programs is not going to help you in the end. I was also quite confused by some of Obama's plans actually.

Just one thing: Who told you germany had very little immigration? The 91% you listed include immigrants with german citizenship. The number of immigrants currently living in germany is 15.1 million people. That number doesn't include the quasi-immigration of 16 million east germans back in 1990 (you have to count that numbers as east germany was pretty much destroyed by communism and the economy in east germany collapsed after the reunification). It's nothing US-like but I would hardly call that very little immigration (and on a side-note I'm quite happy about our high immigration rate. It really adds to your nation's culture. Germany wouldn't feel like "my home" without the turkish influence on our society for example)

From the US standpoint, Germany has very little comparative immigration. I understand there are many German citizens from surrounding nationalities, but I don't think that it's quite like what we have.

I do understand the issues and difficulties the Germans faced during reunification, and the economic issues with such a merger. This is for similar reasons as to why it's difficult with America: We are constantly merging new people into our culture that have very low paying jobs, and little education (ie, illegal Hispanic immigrants), which compare to the merger of a demolished East German economy....This causes a constant offset in the improvements that we attempt to make in other areas. For example, African Americans have made huge strides in the past 30-40 years in terms of education, and the economic gap between their racial group, and the European majority that makes up our population. Despite this, we have offsets in other areas due to illegal immigration.

Furthermore, I don't think many citizens would disagree that it's the governments job to ensure equality for it's citizens. The major crux of the libertarian/conservative critique of equality is that the government shouldn't subsidize equality by taking more from the apt to pay for the inept. Universal healthcare? Not a bad idea. But in America, should we have such a system, we would have close to 15,000,000 illegal immigrants utilizing such a service that do not, and will not pay for it...So those in the middle & upper class face even more progressive taxes to offset the inequality of those that don't pay taxes.

Oh, as for the immigration: I was referring to the CIA factbook concerning racial compositions in your country. In Germany, the majority culture (those of European/German descent) make up 91% of your country. In America, it makes up ~60% and rapidly falling due to influxes of illegal immigrants. Because of this, we are weary to let government force socialism on us. It's not that we do not want healthcare for everyone - it's a great idea - but the argument is who pays for it, and if there's a monopoly on such an institution. In Social Security's case - our federal pension plan - the Government was the soul institution that managed it, and has ruined the system by proving atrocious below-inflation interest rates: Pay in $2,000 today, get $1,900 back once inflation is taken in to consideration. Until President Reagen came into office, there was no other system. Now we have 401k's that provide 10% and above, depending on your plan.

Ultimately, it comes down to the size of government, and the social composition of where your at. I understand the European model, and I think it's great....It works for Europeans. But port it to 1 government that equals the size of many of your countries, with a much larger skewing on the GINI index (far less equal), and it becomes a much more difficult situation to deal with in an American model. Therefore, us conservative/liberitarians want a better hybrid solution: Have universal pension, healthcare, education, but don't give the government a monopoly, as our government is more corrupt than yours.

Health is necessary condition of happiness, not the pursuit of it. The word pursuit is a key word. It means happiness is not meant to be given to you, you have to achieve it on your own, and the government is not to stand in your way.

As for the second line I quoted, I agree 100% if you changed chances to opportunities. In the US, every baby born has the same rights. All jobs are open to them. They cannot be denied acceptance to schools, or denied ownership of property. A baby born in the inner city has the same legal rights as Bill Gates kids do.

As far as equal chances, that's just not possible. A fat man has less of a chance of getting a job then a skinny one. A good looking man will usually make more money. Life will always be easier for some than others. No form of government can change that. All we can hope for is a government that does not contribute to it.

The fact that you had to pay a grand out of pocket shows that this is the case in the current system.

It shouldn't have to come out of the pockets of other people.

All i can tell you is in the school districts by me that do poorly, there isn't enough desks, out of date books etc...

and the teachers are making 6 figures when you count benefits.

@ Mrstickball and TheRealMafoo: I agree with most of what you guys said, actually. I think I misread Mafoo's posts in this thread. To me it sounded like "if you can't afford it you don't deserve it". Instead you guys are arguing from a logical kind of view in which case I completely agree.

Our critique isn't 'if you can't afford it, you don't deserve it'. It's 'if you don't work for it, you don't deserve it'. We want to make sure that everyone is taken care of, but we really desire that it's done in the least invasive way possible to the liberty of everyone.

Our focus is certainly on personal responsibility first, and community responsibility next. 'Passing the buck' to others for the conduct of welfare, which includes the government to take care of the community is very abhorrent, as it does lead to inefficency....The government has no volunteers. Private charities do.

The 'ideal' form is that the individual takes care of themselves and their family. They contribute with time & income in charity work for welfare, rather than pass the buck to someone else, or mandate it from the legislature. If there is no one to help said poor....Then it's OK for the government to get involved, but it should never, in any case, be the first place to go, or seek to reward bad behavior. The American war on poverty (by incorporating welfare) makes about as much sense as the war on drugs (by making them illegal)....As they don't seek to change the individual's mentality, but try to simply sweep the underlying problem under the rug.

Mesoteo said it best...We don't want to give a hand out. We want to give a hand up. 'Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish, and he'll eat for a lifetime' - we prefer to help people conduct themselves with dignity and respect for themselves. If they do not wish to help even themselves, then it's hard for us to find the motivation for them to be helped.

That is the cry of a libertarian/conservative mindset when it comes to government control over the welfare of it's people. It must be an advocate of the solution(s), but not the solution in and of itself, because it leads to more government control over the lifestyle and liberty of it's people.

A few selected quotes on government intervention:

'A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have' Gerald R. Ford (alluding to a Thomas Jefferson quote)

“Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition.” (Thomas Jefferson)

"Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" John F. Kennedy

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

Hopefully a few quotes such as that provides a good primer for some of the ideas we have.

Wow. Great post. To bad it's on page 23 of this thread. This should be its own thread. Run for office, I will vote for you.

Also I like the way Franklin's quote is still so very relevant today. I notice a lot of the progressive thinkers tend to feel the old guys just could not understand the world we live in today. I think the problem today, is people today don't realize just how much it hasn't changed.