Avinash_Tyagi said:
Kasz216 said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
Kasz216 said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
Kasz216 said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
The problem with long-term is it can be defined in so many ways, 15 weeks, 12 months, which is why I ascribe to Keynes who said in the long run we are all dead.
Also it doesn't really change my point regardless of what measure you use for long term, since either way in france the govt bankrolls the unemployed |
And it works out very poorly.
Why? The system gives the poor a lot for free.... but the poor don't really end up owning anything. Families on welfare STAY on welfare, because they can't dig themselves out of the hole... because they get welfare and they can't get jobs to build up money to build up wealth to get out of their holes.
There is too great of a stigma to being out of employment for even a lot of the smaller jobs out there.
Nevermind the fact that their budget deficit makes ours look great... outside of possibly this stimulus spending. Not sure what that'll due to our debt vs GDP. They should technically be kicked out of the EU. But then again countries like Belgium were let in.
(Oh and before you throw back numbers without knowing the meanings... the US actually measures it's government debt different then France.)
|
Public debt in France is 63.9% of GDP as of 2007 ours was 60.8% as of 2007 this is using the CIA sourcebook as reference, to avoid the comparison issues you brought up, not a huge size difference considering.
Even in the US, the poor tend to stay poor, even without welfare assistance, its not like most are able to pull themselves out of being poor, so I fail to see what support you have to your argument that if we don't keep them on Welfare, things will improve for them, more than likely it will probably worsen during economic downturns and not get much better during upturns
|
The situation isn't nearly as bad upword mobility wise in the US.
The proof is in... well france. If you think France is a country that's doing AOK... I don't know what to tell you... it's not. It's got tons of problems stemming from it's political dealings, including it's racial problems.
Additional as External Debt is concerned
Frances's External Debt: 4 Trillion,
France's GDP, 2.56 Trillion.
US External Debt: 12.25 Trillion
US GDP: 13.84 Trillion.
See the difference now?
We rarely go that overbudget... only in times of war and economic crisis. They do regularly.
Additionally we'd have to go even more overbudget to put into effect the France stuff... afterall France just shows how socialised Saftey nets as currently designed do not work on large scale nation.
Imagine the scale of the US. I'd be even worse.
|
Actually no france shows that Socialized safety nets do work, so far you haven't disproved my points, all you've done is brought in other issues, many of which have nothing to do with the socialized safety nets, like the issue of race, also, saying that france has problems, doesn't change the fact that US has problems as well, we have issues with uninsured (over the last two years, 86.7 million have at one point or another been uninsured) , much higher poverty, decaying infrastructure, and we have our own social issues and bigotry problems to deal with, like with the right wing trying to attack gay people, not to mention the severe economic downturn and how to deal with the two wars we are in and its not like we don't have debt issues as well even without our extensive socail net, our debt is going to exceed our GDp very soon (also your dbet figures are a little outdated, you're using 2007 numbers for the US).
So far your relevant arguments have been that one, socialized safety nets lead to problems with employment, economic growth and debt, but you have not addressed the counter points, stronger safety nets also lead to higher standards of living, higher life expectancy, lower poverty rates, better schools (prior to college).
|
No.... the socialized saftey nets are part of the reason FOR some of those problems.
Minorities for example are pissed because socialized saftey nets keep them unemployed and on Welfare. Additionally such Welfare makes the people look down on the Muslim people because it seems like they are almost always on Welfare to these people and are "lazy" and then laws like the headscarve laws pass, and people become and more and more racist.
Social Saftey nets impede the progress of minorites... far more then anything in the US does to ridiculious degrees.
France is much well off for us.
Higher standards of living = short term for one generation... for multiple generations, the poor stay poor... more then the US.
Higher Life expectancy = only for some, and again short term... additionally French life expentacy doesn't numbers never include all of france. Only metropolitian france.
Better schools = Less you can do with them with socilized saftey nets because of the unemployment.
It's like saying Cuba produces better baseball players then the US. Even if this is so.... you would rather be in the US as a baseball player.
|
Actually Kaz, that's incorrect, the Muslims tend to be immigrants and less educated, that's why so many are on welfare, not because of the safety nets, but because they lack skills and are uneducated, there are only so many low wage jobs to go around. Also the muslims in europe tend to cause more crime than the ethnic europeans, just how it is, as a result they are looked down upon due to people thinking that all of them are criminals, by stereotyping the entire group for the actions of a few.
Actually when I refer to the life expectancy I looked at total populaion, not just metropolitan, it was 80.98 years vs. US at 78.06, also higher standard of living applies to the entire population as a whole, it may be short term, but unlikely since the economy in france is growing, and income dispariyy in france is smaller than in the US. Actually having better schools, means you can get better educated, so that even with the lower employment, you can get a job, I mean even with 8-10% unemployment, if you get a doctorate or a medical degree, you'll be able to find a job.
|
