Originally Posted by tonton
GDP means nothing when you have a growing wealth gap. It shows no indication whatsoever of the typical and the minimal standard of living. The typical and minimal standards of living in every one of those countries mentioned here is better than it is in the US. If you're rich, and greedy, and not affected by crime or infrastructure problems, then the US is definitely the best place to live. If you're not rich, it's not.
So the US has lower "minimal standard of living?" Do you really think that's true? Keep in mind we need to account for the population difference (Sweden has about 1/34th ours).
Anecdotally speaking, I live not far from a former steel town. Much of the city is now poor, as the mill is barely functioning and well past its hey day. Like many towns, its minority population and public housing population has increased dramatically. Yet, I still drive down the street and see Direct TV dishes, cars, etc. This is a common sight in lower income, minority areas. The point? The vast majority of poor Americans have a very decent "minimum standard." Our poor do not even compare
to much of the world's poor. Now, we do have homeless and people that don't live in good situations. But this is not the case for much of the nation.
I also think that if you look at the middle class, the same holds true. Middle income people in the United States experience a luxurious existence compare to many other countries across the globe. Our middle class is huge and unprecedented in history. And you're telling me a nation of 9 million
that hasn't fought a war since 1814 compares favorably? It's just silly.
Originally Posted by jimmac
We were on topic. Your attitude is the same as Cantor's.
There is simply no explaining that statement.
Originally Posted by jimmac
Which eyes are those? Your subjective ones? I remember several politicians who were of the conservative rank who didn't deal with reality very well. Richard Nixon who thought he was above the law and sought to influence a presidential election by breaking and entering.
How is Richard Nixon relevant to this discussion. Let me guess, you probably think he's being intellectually dishonest
by not mentioning every Republican who ever did anything wrong.
Then there's Dubbya who was just sure people would totally buy the idea of WMD in Iraq ( which of course turned out to be false ).
Ahh...bringing up the lack of WMD...in a thread about the economy of socialized democracies that has branched out into the economy of Sweden vs. the U.S.
Dubbya who by the way since he was in charge for 8 years could have done something different to avert this most recent economic mess before it got bad.
To use your words, "we've talked about this already." What
could he have done? The Administration was pushing for regulations in the mortgage industry (Fannie and Freddie) for five years. Frank and Waters wouldn't have any of it. Bush enacted tax rebates
as things slowed. He signed TARP when the crisis really hit. Tell me jimmac, what action should have been taken?
And I play in the sandbox everytime I come here.
I have no doubt.