Liberals Are Aborting Themselves Out of Existence

[AstroBlue]

The people who have to pay them. US tax rates are high enough.

And your health care and education systems suck, so what's your point?

Just because these countries have high tax rates, you're going to dimiss the fact it's catagorically better to live there? I'm happy to pay a resonably high amount of tax, money ain't everything.

[Gohron]

And your health care and education systems suck, so what's your point?

So just because these countries have high tax rates, you're going to dimiss the fact it's catagorically better to live there? I'm happy to pay a resonably high amount of tax, money ain't everything.

I understand what you're getting at but the education system and health care system seem to suck here because the government runs them poorly. Almost all the schools I've went to clearly showed how good they were at mismanaging funds.

[AstroBlue]

Good point.

[Tracer]

Good point.

As I understand it, his point is conceeding that the United States Government cannot properly run critical institutions or at least not as well as other nations can. This would mean we should minimize government influence and indeed lower taxes to "starve the beast." I don't see how this makes Education or Health Care better but ok. Moving on.

Perhaps, it can be said, that the standard of living in the USA is lower because of several outside factors. One being, as I have heard it, that the United States burdens itself with the welfare of much of the rest of the world and that given that, our standard of living is instead remarkably high. It is also said that countrys like Canada, Norway, and Belgium take advantage of this somehow, like how thier pharacuticals are cheaper there because of... Because of I don't know what but (oh I ramble) that's something I have heard, albeit only partially. Correct me if I am wrong, fill me in if this is right.

I find it odd however, that if the United States (meaning, the government who represents the people of the United States) would find that it is most pragmatic to 'starve the beast,' and let its own people decide how thier money is best spent* that it would not think the same way reguarding many affairs abroad. Recently, that has amounted to massive and inefficent spending, on goals that, while admirable entirely at face value, are foolish. Small government at home, large government abroad?

Anyway, I do agree. That is a good point. The United States has indeed proven itself to be bloated and inefficent. One idea seems to want to change that system (though who, I must ask, is running on the platform of actually changeing the 'system' and has the nuts and bolts figured out? Other nations seem to have figured thiers out.) and another seems to want to minimize the use or reliance on it.

*I like that idea, though I am pretty sure things like Health Care, PROPER Defence, The Arts and Sciences as well as Education should indeed be run by the government and not starved but the system on which they work IMPROVED. ESPECIALLY Defence.)

[Diff-chan]

And your health care and education systems suck, so what's your point?

Just because these countries have high tax rates, you're going to dimiss the fact it's catagorically better to live there? I'm happy to pay a resonably high amount of tax, money ain't everything.

The school systems are run by the state, so you cant really blame Uncle Sam for it if they suck. And not all of them do. New Jersey has very good K-12 education.

I will also add that the public universities here are second to none.

[AstroBlue]

hdr.undp.org

that the United States burdens itself with the welfare of much of the rest of the world and that given that

No way. Let's look at contributiton per GNI via the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), the one in brackets is the percentage of the GNI going to poorly developed countries.

America: 0.11% (0.02%)
Norway: 0.83% (0.28%)
Sweden: 0.81% (0.22%)
Denmark 1.03% (0.33%)
Australia 0.25% (0.05%)

All the countries with the higher standards of living are actually giving more generously to developing countries than the USA is. The USA actually has one of the worst per % GNI contribution to developing countries within the OECD.

It is also said that countrys like Canada, Norway, and Belgium take advantage of this somehow, like how thier pharacuticals are cheaper there because of... Because of I don't know what but (oh I ramble) that's something I have heard, albeit only partially. Correct me if I am wrong, fill me in if this is right.

Correct, except it's not really taking advantage of any US policy, and it's not making your health care system shittier.

The main reason the USA is not No.1 in the Human Development index is because it's unbalanced. The wealth is not distributed evenly enough, and you don't have a good enough welfare system. Your government relies too much on private sectors to burden the weight. And since the private sector couldn't give a flying fuck about supplying health care and education to the poor, you're fucking yourselves up the arse by creating ecnomic burdens instead of more workers/consumers.

Basically, you're big for nothing. The proof is in the pudding.

[Tracer]

Thanks for the info man. Always a good help =)

[AstroBlue]

Thanks for the info man. Always a good help =)

No problem

Anyway, With all that said and done, there is little difference in the top ten:
http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2...dic_8_1_1.html

It's not like America is a fucking hole, being the seventh best country in the world to live in ain't too shabby at all. Poland (35) and upwards are basically all good countries to live in.

[Diff-chan]

Basically it's a matter of those damn poor people dragging down the US in the rankings. Time to set them on fire.

[AstroBlue]

I believe this news. Send them to Sierra Leon; it's not like MORE poor people are going to make a difference there.