Liberals have an affinity for the big government nanny-statism of socialist Europe. Don't ask me why. It doesn't make much sense to me, but that's the way it is. However, if a Conservative actually uses the word "socialist" to describe liberal socialist policies, liberals become apoplectic. Don't ask me to explain that one either. That makes even less sense. I mean, it's not like The Communists of the old USSR bridled at being called Communists. Of course they didn't. They WERE Communists. They were proud of it. They thought their way was the best (wrong, comrade, but nice try). Yet liberals, who propose one collectivist, socialist, big government policy after another, take umbrage at being called Socialists. I don't get it. It's as if liberals are afraid to air their true beliefs in public, for fear they will be exposed. Why ? Let's stop all the game playing, and call a spade a spade. Let's measure European socialist policy against American free-market capitalist policy. Maybe we can discover which policy works the best (the question was actually settled long ago, but apparently, liberals keep forgetting).
Back in 2004, a pair of Swedish economists, Fredrik Bergstrom and Robert Gidehag, did a study called "The EU vs. USA", for the Swedish think tank Timbro. You may recall that Sweden is one of those European socialist countries that liberals like to point to as a model of success, a country we should pattern ourselves after.
So, how did the USA stack up to the European Union in the study ? I'm glad you asked. Here are the results:
[The study] found that if Europe were part of the U.S., only tiny Luxembourg could rival the richest of the 50 American states in gross domestic product per capita. Most European countries would rank below the U.S. average, as the chart below shows.
The authors admit that man doesn't live by GDP alone, and that this measure misses output in the "black" economy, which is significant in Europe's high-tax states. GDP also overlooks "the value of leisure or a good environment" or the way prosperity is spread across a society.
But a rising tide still lifts all boats, and U.S. GDP per capita was a whopping 32% higher than the EU average in 2000, and the gap hasn't closed since. It is so wide that if the U.S. economy had frozen in place at 2000 levels while Europe grew, the Continent would still require years to catch up. Ireland, which has lower tax burdens and fewer regulations than the rest of the EU, would be the first but only by 2005. Switzerland, not a member of the EU, and Britain would get there by 2010. But Germany and Spain would need until 2015, while Italy, Sweden and Portugal would have to wait until 2022.
Higher GDP per capita allows the average American to spend about $9,700 more on consumption every year than the average European. So Yanks have by far more cars, TVs, computers and other modern goods. "Most Americans have a standard of living which the majority of Europeans will never come anywhere near," the Swedish study says.
Americans are richer, have more disposable income, and have greater economic growth, by far.
Europeans have a black market. That's what happens when freedom is forced underground.
Only Ireland, which has emulated the American ideals of lower taxes and fewer regulations, is catching up economically to the good old USA. Conclusion – freedom works, and top-down government control is a piss-poor substitute.
But what about that "fairness" and "spreading the wealth" that Barack Obama is always trumpeting ? Again, I'm glad you asked. Here's more from the study:
The percentage of Americans living below the poverty line has dropped to 12% from 22% since 1959. In 1999, 25% of American households were considered "low income," meaning they had an annual income of less than $25,000. If Sweden–the very model of a modern welfare state–were judged by the same standard, about 40% of its households would be considered low-income.
In other words poverty is relative, and in the U.S. a large 45.9% of the "poor" own their homes, 72.8% have a car and almost 77% have air conditioning, which remains a luxury in most of Western Europe. The average living space for poor American households is 1,200 square feet. In Europe, the average space for all households, not just the poor, is 1,000 square feet.
So what is Europe's problem? "The expansion of the public sector into overripe welfare states in large parts of Europe is and remains the best guess as to why our continent cannot measure up to our neighbor in the west," the authors write. In 1999, average EU tax revenues were more than 40% of GDP, and in some countries above 50%, compared with less than 30% for most of the U.S.
And do I even need to mention that America provides military defense for Europe ? Europe is relieved of most of that huge burden, yet we are STILL doing far better than they are. Wake up and smell the coffee, America. We shouldn't be emulating THEM, they should be emulating US. The smart ones, like Ireland, are.
The American way is imperfect, of course. All systems are imperfect, but America's way is FAR better than the European way, and far better than any other way that has been devised. Yet, liberals, including Barack Obama, keep wanting to emulate the inferior model. Lord knows why. I don't speak liberal, but I do know this – doing it in the name of "fairness" is extremely misguided.
It's said that harsh economic times are when it's mostly likely for a people to embrace the wrong philosophy. There are numerous examples of that throughout history. That's what I think we are about to do here, by embracing Obama as a backlash against Bush (who governed as a big government, big spender, people. Again, wake up. It's not about R vs. D). Obama's a nice guy, good public speaker, well intentioned and all, but he's just wrong – end of story.
Be careful what you ask for America, because you just might get it. In fact, you are only a couple days away from getting it. Good luck with that. You'll need it.


{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
Number one Obama is NOT proposing we become a socialist nation. So just forget that idea. So one need not fear if that is what you worry about. Number two I don't care for conservative rich man's scare tactics to try to make us think socialist programs are bad and evil. We already have programs in place that one such as yourself might consider as you put it to be socialist. Medicare and social security , two of our best programs. Under medicare we get health care cheaper than many private insurance companies. Social security we can at least get some help in our old age when companies are wiping out retirement plans.
Obama's health care plan is NOT socialism. Employers will be given the choice of providing tax-favored health insurance to their employees or being taxed to support a public insurance system. I personally feel a socialist health care plan one where everyone will have equal access to free health care would be a good thing. No longer will money dictate who gets good health care.
As for taxes let's remind us that it was McCain who also once voted against Bush's 2001 tax cuts and voted against his 2003 tax cuts. McCain once said "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the more fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief." But now to win over conservatives he changed his tune. Purely to get votes.
What has happened under Bush is the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. I personally do not share your views on Europe having spent time visiting different places having relatives living in Europe. Perhaps the rich are not as rich as we but they do not have to worry about health care if they loose their job. There is a certain amount less STRESS and more relaxation, they have vacations of a month off and along with this many Europeans are just happier. Stress is what kills us Americans. This is not just my opinion but it is a opinion shared by many when they rank best places to live. While Capitalism has its benefits because of accelerated economic growth and prosperity a little socialism doesn't hurt and can actually be good for many of us middle class. Our lives can be less stressed. This is somethign we need to learn from the Europenas not fear it.
Watch your step…..straw man construction under way here in King's post.
Consider…
Should King stop driving on our socialized roadways? Should he discontinue visiting our socialized national parks? Should he not participate in a few years, when he and I are eligible, in our socialized Medicare program. Should he refuse to cash that socialized SS check when it comes?
America has long ago agreed to accept some common good programs. In doing so, we have never, ever, considered our economy a socialized one.
And those limited common good programs are not bad for the nation….they are good.
Now in 2008, the richest country ever is deciding that the threshold of the common good should be lifted to include health care for all. This, somehow, is being labeled a bad thing by economic extremists. It isn't. It will make us a better country…a more prosperous country in the long run.
The issue to consider is not GDP or how big your house is….the issue is overall standard of living. America, the richest of all, lags many countries, coming in at 17th overall, when standard of living tests are applied.
Obama and the Democrats are far from socialists….if anything….they are still too beholden to corporate capitalist concerns.
We have a $13 trillion yearly GDP. The largest in the world. That didn't happen because we are falling into some national socialistic trap constructed by closeted communists in the Democratic Party. That's just silly.
Now take that straw man down King….Halloween is over.
But the Euros seem so gosh-darned sophisticated, King.
I seem to remember the Reverend touting the Euros' 'more intelligent' society and implying that's what The One is going to deliver, quite recently. The King's post is no strawman.
King
Europe would be a basket case if it were not for the free protection the U.S. has been giving that continent of freeloaders for the past sixty-years plus.
Actually, Europe's socialism is like a giant parasite that can grow only under the full protection of U.S. military might. Without the U.S., Europe could not affort the economic folly that is socialism, right?
The delicious thing about this election is that, whoever wins, this protection will diminish — albeit faster if, God forbid, B. Hussein Obama wins than McCain, but shrink nonetheless.
And besides, how can anyone defend Europe when those countries continue to allow the social cancer that is Islam grow inside of it while at the same time commiting demographic suicide in terms of its native population?
Simply put, nothing is good about it.
To quote Andrea,
"Medicare and social security , two of our best programs. Under medicare we get health care cheaper than many private insurance companies. Social security we can at least get some help in our old age when companies are wiping out retirement plans."
Isn't everyone familiar with the huge failure that is Social Security and Medicare? (I hope that Andrea didn't vote, but she probably did. Sometimes I think that there should be a minimum requirement of political knowledge before being given a right you don't appreciate anyway, the right to vote).
It is not new news for most, but could be helpful to those who think that large government programs will save us all.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/23/politics/main682545.shtml
Do we want these folks taking more money and power for more programs like health care? I leave that to you, but consider this: If you believe that the evil capitolist's should be stopped, then stop buying their goods, they will eventually fold. On the other hand, if we give all of the power and money to a government, (this is called tyranny), it is impossible, short of armed revolution to take it back. Once we have given up our freedoms and powers to a government, we no longer deserve them anyway I guess. And for those of you who believe that a socialist government with incredible powers will not behave like the "evil" capitolists I suggest a world history class.
This country is unique, there is only one like it on the planet. It also happens to be the most successful. On the other hand, the world is full of tyranny and socialism, why don't socialists go there instead of destroying our system? Your socialism is only a short drive North. Try and get a kidney transplant there, if you need one, you will wind up in Michigan where my mother waited unsuccessfully for 13 years due to the high Canadian attrition. The emergency room will not send a bill, the government just takes it out of your check every week, but a specialist is almost impossible to see. They are few and they are busy. There is no financial benefit to go to school for a specialty, nor is there money in research. If you are waiting for a socialist system to invent something or to cure cancer, don't hold your breath.
At the University I attend, most feel as if Marxism is the key to our salvation. Please compare the EU system to ours, GDP, housing, annual average income all fall way below ours here in the US. So has socialism wiped out homelessness or other social ills it claims to cure?
Barrack Obama has never claimed to be Marxist, but don't actions speak louder than words, or are talking points and bumper stickers more important than factual evidence?