let's try and avoid this here

[reaper239]

The goverment will always pay for social programs at the expense of its citizens, who else will pay? Socialism isn't the root of the european probem, lack of fiscal responisbility and the very structure of the single currency is. Balancing the budget has to become a secondary priority to growth, austerity reduces countries GDP, reducing their ability to pay off their debts.

here in america, the people used to take care of each other. the government didn't provide for the people (because that's not their job) and the people helped each other. the best way to spark growth is to free the market, not regulate it into oblivion. what happens when you hike taxes on businessess? they move. look at it this way: i live in a town that just raised my taxes to 30%. the next town over, however, only has 10% taxes. where am i going to reside and do my business? it's the same thing you find in countries, raise the taxes on businessess and those who can, move, while those who can't close up shop.

Socialism saves lives.

cuba, the USSR, zambia, china, egypt, algeria, bolivia, north korea (i mean it's not like people are eating each other over there) that is a very bold statement with centuries of of contradictory evidence. i mean, if socialistic governments are so great, why did the arab spring occur? those are all strong central governments, and yet the people wanted something else. they may be worse off now with the muslim brotherhood in power, but that's a theocracy.

If you want to see how, I reccomend you watch Michael Moore's "Sicko". In the UK if I happen to get a form of cancer that is extremely expensive to cure then the cost is covered by the tax payers. Everybody pays, and the cost tothem is less than if they had a few expensive operations. They can also rest easy at night knowing their treatment is peformed by people who's interest is their health not in making money.

except that it's not covered. the only reason to see sicko is to see michael more stay afloat in a boat long enough to make it to cuba. surely that's a trick of hollywood. michael moore is not a documentarian by any stretch of the imagination. why are 70,000 british citizens going abroad for health care as of 2007? might it be because they have no options in britain, they have no hope, and so look for it elsewhere? at least in the US (as long as obamacare gets shot down in the courts) you can get whatever treatment you need, and there are options to help you do it. why do you think so many new treatment options are available in the UK? because americans pioneered the treatment. the more a treatment is done, the more ways people figure out how to do it better and cheaper until it becomes cheap enough that it can go to countries that regulate their health care, the way britain does.

GeneTwo is right though, if you want to balance the budget then increase tax proportionally, the rich (who can afford it) suffer the greatest increase in tax while the poor are left untouched.

i talked about this in section 1, but i'd like to say a little more about taxes and the economy. everyone talks about big oil. big oil is stealing from the consumer, big oil is hiking gas prices, big oil, big oil, big oil. did you know that exxon, one of the biggest oil companies in the world, has a profit margin of only 7.62%. for comparison, let's look at other US based companies: apple-27.13%, microsoft-29.34%, and google-27.1%. in 2010, exxon made $30.46 billion in profit, but when you compare that to the $78.6 billion they paid in taxes, it really puts their profits in perspective. as far as the wealthiest 1%, well, i for one think they pay enough in the US. according to taxfoundation.org, the wealthiest 1% pay 39.38% of the income tax burden, in the US. the top 10% pays 70.30% of the taxes in the US. i think we all pay enough taxes folks, maybe it's time for our governments do what their citizens do and spend within their means.

The problem with this is the people in power, due to the way the American (and British to a lesser extent) democratic systems work. Basically the rich are favoured over the poor. For example Obama has an estate of about $12,000,000 and Obama is in the bottom 3rd of members of the US senate. And guess what, they don't very much like the idea of increasing tax for themselves or their friends. Thats without mentioning lobbyists who greatly avert the direction of goverment policy in favour of the super rich individuals and corperations.

true, this is a problem, but what is also a problem is people electing politicians who have never held a real job. i work for a living, as such i must blalnce my bills, but few of our politicians, particularly the democrats for some reason, have had to go through that. then, we had a chance to elect a man who had real business experience to bring to the table, who had a first hand knowledge on how economics work, and we let the media assassinate him from the race. because it makes more sense to keep a man in office who thinks that socialism (hello north korea) is a good economic plan. thumbs up.

Europe would not be in the situation if it was not for Anglo-American banks collapsing. They were slow to realise the degree to which those collapses would affect their economies. If it was not for poor regulation of anglo-american banks then they would not have collapsed, the EU would not have been affected and suicide rates in countries would have stayed lower than that of the united states. To summarise, Capitilism was fatal for the EU and killed those people, not socialism. In fact a more heavily regulated, big goverment US would have prevented this collapse.

if it were not for excessive regulation which attempted to defy the basic principles of economics, this wouldn't be a problem. let's look at te US housing market. bush, fannie mae, and freddie mac all set out ot defy the laws of economics by doling out mcmansions to people with mcjobs. they sold houses that people couldn't afford to the people that couln't afford them and then shocker llnl they couldn't pay for them. that meant that all these loans were floating around out htere with no one to pay on them. if the market were allowed to set the interest rates, make loan decisions itself, and reap it's own rewards/consequences, we wouldn't be having this discussion. so to summarize, capitalism didn't fail, what failed was the idea the people could legislate prosperity. and for proof, over the last 200 years the US has become the envy of the world. for proof, just look at how many people try to come here illegaly (mexicos cheif export to the US is illegal immigrants), but since that's a hard number to gauge, let's look at the number of people who were naturalized between 2008-2010: 2,410,227. that's not including the number who applied, that's just those who were granted citizenship. damn. and america didn't start declining until we began implimenting socialist ideas.

nothing against you man, but socialism has been proven a bad idea over and over again. nothing good ever comes from it. the cheif export of most socialist countries is its citizens and prosperity.

[Solanine]

Oh crap, looks like my last post didn't work. Was just checking my subscribed threads and I saw I wasn't the last poster. My original reply took a little while so forgive me if I don't post right now.

[Luna Guardian]

Alright, first of all, what is going on in China, North Korea and used to in the USSR isn't socialism. It's called that, but it really isn't. It's a hybrid of dictatorship and socialism, so you can't really blame socialism for the problems those people face (also, quoting North Korea as an example is like quoting Nazi Germany as an example. You wreck your own credibility by doing so. It's an effective scare tactic against those who are either dumb or completely ignorant of what goes on outside their bedroom, but otherwise you might want to drop it from your arguments).

Now, speaking of Europe as a single whole is another issue I have a problem with. Southern European countries are in economic death throes, but the north is (for the most part) doing pretty ok. Our countries aren't a trillion dollars in debt, Germany's one of the most powerful economies in the world and the Nordic countries are doing ok, all things considered (especially Norway, cheeky pricks). Sure, there are overspanning issues in Europe that affect everyone, comes with the common currency and trade area, but categorically putting every European country in the same basket is just wrong and doesn't help your argument.

Now, those things being said, I am a believer in capitalism. I believe that a person should be rewarded according to his/her worth and input. I am not studying my ass off and taking responsibilities to not be rewarded for it in the end. And of course I don't like paying taxes, I would much rather keep the money myself. But I also enjoy the fact that I have FREE EDUCATION UP TO DOCTORAL LEVEL (multiple doctorates if I want them), free roads and free healthcare.

Socialism and capitalism are both bad when taken to extremes, like every concept. There is a middle ground to be found, the sweetspot where the individual freedoms and entrepreneurial spirit of capitalism are met by the obvious benefits of everyone chipping in for a commond good that you gain from socialism. And as someone living in a far more "socialist" country than you Reaper, I never fail to burst out laughing when you Americans tout around the word "socialism" or "socialist" in your politics. Your most left winged politicians are more right winged than our most right winged conservatives

[Solanine]

Luna guardian I kind of hate you. Because that was pretty much my original reply (which either bugged out and was lost in the aether or I completely forgot to click the post button) except you compressed it and expressed it more eloquently than I did. Just to follow up on what Luna said, as well as the other countries mentioned, Bulgaria has the lowest income tax in the EU and 80% of its GDP comes from the private sector.

And as for the NHS, pretty much everything but cosmetic care is covered. And the expensive cancer drugs of which I talked? Free. Drugs like medication for allergies and other prescription medications all cost £7 per month for over 18's. What ever the market price. And the reason british people go else where for healthcare? "The iron lady of the western world". Margret Thatcher gutted the dental system. She didn't believe in the state funding healthcare. And the people of Northen Britain HATED her. On guy forks night they burnt effigies of her rather than guy's. And now there are huge waiting lists for dentists because the private sector has failed to pick up the slack.

The problem with US economy was not that it was legislated, it was that it was poorly legislated. Had governing bodies taken better care with regulating the banks and had more power to deal with the problem we wouldn't be where we are now.

As for your country being in decline? Its inevitable. As more countries become more developed they will begin to claim their own slice of pie meaning countries like the US and Britain will have to give up the disproportionate amount they hold. Get used to it. You won't beat them economically and you won't take the wealth back with military strength.

People used to take care of each other? Well in cities of millions of people thats not feasible in the way it was before. Thats what the government is for. A goverment should be no more than a vehicle through which to carry out the collective will of the people.

Finally, socialist-capatilist hybrid goverments have yet to create the same GDP as the capitalist me and Luna seem to support. Thats not to say its impossible, just that the science is yet to be (and probably won't be in the forseable future) honed. But morally, however you look at it, allowing somebody who could live a happy healthy life to die due to lacking a one time treatment is abismal.

[yarri]

Why are we using the word free to describe health care, schooling, and cancer drugs they are not free some one pays for them in the form of taxes and high cost for things such as basic necessities. Free is an incorrect word.

[Solanine]

Why are we using the word free to describe health care, schooling, and cancer drugs they are not free some one pays for them in the form of taxes and high cost for things such as basic necessities. Free is an incorrect word.

Free is not a correct word. Nothing is ever truly free as anybody familiar with Newtons laws of thermo dynamics knows (see law of conservation of energy). Everybody pays taxes. But the idea of public healthcare is that whether your Alan sugar or a working class joe you have access to healthcare essential to provide a long and comfortable life. Nobody should be entitled to a longer life just because of the economic prowess of their father or their fathers father.

[yarri]

Free is not a correct word. Nothing is ever truly free as anybody familiar with Newtons laws of thermo dynamics knows (see law of conservation of energy). Everybody pays taxes. But the idea of public healthcare is that whether your Alan sugar or a working class joe you have access to healthcare essential to provide a long and comfortable life. Nobody should be entitled to a longer life just because of the economic prowess of their father or their fathers father.

I agree with you fully on this but no matter how you slice it healthcare or any social program isn't free

[Solanine]

And I agree with you, nothings free. Renewable energy isn't renewable. But its better for the strong to carry the burdens of the weak than to leave them behind. Society depends on altruism. If you want to look at it from the perspective of the individual then I'm happy to do it. Both health insurance and healthcare systems like the NHS are there to prevent an individual being ruined by the unexpected. It spreads the cost of the cancer treatment (there are other examples but cancer is an easy and topical example) over a lifetime. Its an aproach that allows the patient to survive and benifits the doctors because they can charge higher prices for their labour. The reason for going with a government controled system is that an insurance companies interest is in keeping their stock owners happy where as a goverment should ideally value the welfare of their citizens above financial gain.

[Nate Eeez]

Simply put; I'm willing to pay for everyone to be covered with health insurance through my tax dollars.

[VEE]

I agree with you fully on this but no matter how you slice it healthcare or any social program isn't free

It is in the sense that somebody who has never paid any Income tax or national insurance can receive the same treatment as me, who has paid both for nearly 30 years. To them, it is free healthcare, and that is the way we tend to 'think' of it, as, were I to fall ill and need £100,000 worth of treatment, I don't have that sort of money, but I would still get the treatment, and no debt or requirement to pay it back.

The NHS is not perfect, and the Michael Moore 'Documentary' is flawed, and you are right though of course, somebody does pay for it in the end. The idea is simply that we all pay for each other to be well, and this goes back through time, to our forefathers (well, 1948) who set it up, people down the years who have contributed and people today, when you are hurting, they are all there for you, and it is a wonderful thing.

I sound like a bit of an old romantic there.