The Empire Strikes Back: 1998 Obama Video: ZOMG REDISTRIBUTION!!!1111onesy

[viper37]

I tell you again what I keep telling you: Obama is a social democrat, and social democracies are in their final phases of dying out in Europe.
To have him switch the US into a welfare state when welfare states have been proved a bad idea would be catastrophic.

That's completely the opposite of the way things are. Its OTT liberalism which has been shown to be very iffy thanks to the 2008 mess. Socialism is the future.

It made wonders for Greece

[MadImmortalMan]

the US is very far from a social democratic state.

What makes you say so?

[Eddie Teach]

the US is very far from a social democratic state.

What makes you say so?

Yeah, I mean, we do have that 3000+ mile border.

[Sheilbh]

the US is very far from a social democratic state.

What makes you say so?

I always think its the vanity of small difficulties. China isn't a social democracy, Hong Kong isn't, Ethiopia isn't.  The US government spends about 2% less than the Canadian, that's not the dividing line between social democracy and bracing capitalism. The US is simply another Anglophone social democracy of varying degrees, just like the UK, NZ and Oz.

[Jacob]

That's funny Sheilbh

"Just another anglophone social democracy."

[Eddie Teach]

The US government spends about 2% less than the Canadian, that's not the dividing line between social democracy and bracing capitalism.

Yeah but they spend it on health care and we spend it on the military.

[Sheilbh]

Th US government spends more as a percent on healthcare than Canada, they just get more for it.

[viper37]

What makes you say so?

I live in Quebec.  I know what is a socialist hell.

[Razgovory]

What makes you say so?

I live in Quebec.  I know what is a socialist hell.

You know, I bet one of the posters that has lived in a Warsaw pact country could give us a better idea what "socialist hell" is.

[viper37]

Th US government spends more as a percent on healthcare than Canada, they just get more for it.

not really, no.
As % of the GDP, us total expenditures in health care for 2010 were 9.6%, significantly less than Canada at 11.4%.
Per Capita, they do spend twice as more as us, 8233$ vs 4445$.
In the US, 48.2% of health expenditures are made by the government compared to 71.1% for Canada.

Source: OECD Health Data 2012 - Frequently Requested Data

[viper37]

You know, I bet one of the posters that has lived in a Warsaw pact country could give us a better idea what "socialist hell" is.

Isn't Martinus too young to have known the communist era?

What makes you say so?

I live in Quebec.  I know what is a socialist hell.

You know, I bet one of the posters that has lived in a Warsaw pact country could give us a better idea what "socialist hell" is.

Tax rates as a % of GDP:
Canada: 32.2%
USA: 26%

Quebec would be higher than Canada, but I can't find the date.  Just for Quebec, taxes are 23% of the GDP, but you need to add the Federal taxes too.

[Razgovory]

Dguller is the same age as me, Marty and Solymr are a bit older.  I don't know Tamas's age.  I think there's a good chance they all remember the communist era.

[Sheilbh]

My source was World Bank/WHO.

Looking at OECD data you're not comparing the same thing, though you're right. Total expenditure on health as a percent of GDP is 11.4% in Canada and 17.6% in the US. Government expenditure is 71% and 48% respectively of those totals. So government healthcare spending is 9% and 8.5% respectively. It is lower in the US (though other sources disagree) but it's hardly a massive difference.

[Neil]

We were wrong to get rid of the Homestead Act.  The Republican Party should make it part of their platform to bring it back.  Well, so should the Democratic Party, but I see zero chance of the Democratic Party endorsing anything that gives something the government owns to a private individual.  Not that there's much chance that the Republicans will endorse bringing back the Homestead Act, either.

Farming is never the answer.

[Admiral Yi]

Don't you really see the connection between the two? I mean, seriously. Are you unable to see it or is it just another Yi-style debate of "prove something obvious to me"?

What I don't see is the means and end connection between the two.  A low income person in Britain isn't given a housing subsidy "so that they can have a fair shot at a good paying job."  If that were true then the continuation of that person in his low income job would be proof of the failure of the subsidy to achieve its stated objective.  Or alternatively, there might be requirements attached to the subsidy involving a good faith effort to take advantage of that "fair shot" which the subsidies provide.  Neither of those is true.  What's true is that residence in a social democratic state entitles a person to a minimum standard of living, regardless of whether they take a fair shot at a good paying job or not.

In the US context the phrase "having a fair shot" has gained legitimacy during the debates about racial discrimination, access to higher education, sex discrimination, and the like.  Most Americans agree with the notion that factors that prevent a competition on pure merit are illegitimate.  Most Americans agree that everyone should, in fact, have a fair shot.

What Obama has done has taken this previously legitimized principle of the level playing field, and attempted to graft it onto a) higher taxes on the rich, and b) wealth redistribution, which in my mind completely ignores the lack of a causal relationship between the policies and outcomes being discussed.