Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was going to take this point by point, but I'll stick with simplicity because it's more of an attitude than anything else we're really discussing.
You know the old saying - The greater the risk, the higher the potential return on investment. Well, many Americans believe that. We're a nation of risk takers, renegades, and refugees. For most of us, our ancestors bet against the odds and came here under onerous conditions to carve out a living from a wild, harsh, beautiful land bursting with hopes and hardships. They came here to escape oppressive, abusive governments. They never expected life to be easy, or to have anything guaranteed to them other than danger and hard work in exchange for opportunity.
We are their children. In order to understand Americans, you simply MUST acknowledge, and respect this familial history that so many of us -the majority of us - share.
If we're purely discussing the history of the United States, then of course I agree that what you say is correct. If however it's your opinion that the circumstances you describe are still the case, then there are some statistics we'll come to that you might find surprising.
Quote:
By the way, chastisement on these supposedly rigid social classes in the US, especially coming from a person from the UK, really does strike me as ironic. The United States has an unprecedented history and tradition of offering unparalleled opportunity to just about ANYONE from any corner of the globe or socioeconomic status - if they are willing and able to grasp the concepts of capitalism and hard work. We are one of the least "class conscious" countries on this planet. Are you honestly reaching this conclusion of Americans being trapped in our "social classes" because you read an article on the very poorest of the poor in the US which stated that they have a difficult time breaking that cycle of poverty? That would be true in nearly any country.
There can be very little valid comparison between, say, Sweden and the US - the two countries are so incredibly disparate and the US is so vastly different in size, population, diversity, even climate compared to Sweden. What "works" for a very small (comparatively) group of similar people, with similar backgrounds, work ethics, and even genetics, in a small geographical area, simply cannot be assumed to work on a completely different culture in a completely different setting (both geographically and historically).
I'm genuinely sorry if you're finding my criticism chastising, I'm doing my utmost to avoid that by repeatedly re-iterating that the UK does not have a proud record in this respect either. I'm endeavouring to support factual statements I make about your country with solid evidence, if there is anything else you'd like me to include in my analysis just ask. You must surely agree though, that if I'm to make the point which I'm trying to, indeed the point of the whole thread, it requires me to challenge notions you hold about your own country, and by extension to have my own opinions challenged.
You say that the USA has an unprecedented history and tradition of offering opportunity to anyone from any corner of the globe or socio-economic status, and so long as we're talking about history then of course I agree with you. I could recite the plaque on the Statue of Liberty from memory if it would help convince you of my sincerity. What I'm saying though, is that while historically the case you're making is rock solid, the same cannot be said of America today. By way of example, you seem to be of the opinion that Sweden is in some sense a more homogenous society than the USA. In many respects you're completely correct, but I think the reasons for the homogeneity aren't what you think. The statistics (or a visit to Stockholm) show that 12.3% of Swedes were born outwith Sweden. By comparison, 12.81% of Americans were born outwith the USA, there isn't a significant difference anymore. (1) What was true in the early 20th Century has long since ceased to be true, and if you want to talk about irony, the country which takes in the most refugee's (asylum seekers per capita) is Germany, which also has significantly higher levels of social mobility than either the USA or the UK. (2)
Forgive me for becoming slightly alarmed when you start talking about 'work ethic' and genetics, but you must appreciate that I can draw only one conclusion? i.e. That you think that within the USA there are some genetically related groups who are in some sense naturally imbued with less of a 'work ethic' than (presumably?) those of a European or Asian background? If that is your opinion (and I hope I've mis-understood you) then I doubt that we're going to be able to agree on very much! There is no known gene for 'work ethic', nor is it at all likely that there is such a thing.
There are on the other hand, such things as broken homes, inner city schools and lack of job opportunities. To take them in turn, the largest single factor in relationship breakdowns are financial worries (3). Naturally this causes a vicious cycle of being born poor in a single parent family, growing up to in turn break up with a wife or partner over financial stresses, ushering in the next generation. This in turn leads to disproportionate numbers of disruptive students from unhappy homes in areas blighted by these financial worries, negatively affecting the education of all the people in those areas. Finally, in the information age we live in, employers are (understandably) dis-interested in setting up shop in locations where they can't find the numbers of skilled staff necessary to do the job, removing the only positive influence the market economy could bring to the poor. I'm not trying to argue that this cycle is completely insurmountable for individual people, but you surely agree that the majority of the people stuck in it remain in it? (We saw the stats earlier?)
While I completely understand that many Americans such as yourself feel a historical attachment to the traditional conception of yourselves as freedom loving risk takers, but don't you see how much has changed in a world dominated by information sector jobs that require a solid education? Maybe the US hasn't lost enough manufacturing jobs yet for the future to seem clear, but living in a post-industrialised country which went through what America is currently experiencing in the 1980's, I can only warn you that harking back to the Oregon Trail isn't going to change very much.
Quote:
By the way, 99.9 percent of Americans won't agree on ANY one thing, including "everything you just said." Sorry!
If we're at the point that 99.9% of Americans no longer aspire to the American Dream (which is what I described) then I'll reluctantly take your word for it.
You say that the USA has an unprecedented history and tradition of offering opportunity to anyone from any corner of the globe or socio-economic status, and so long as we're talking about history then of course I agree with you. I could recite the plaque on the Statue of Liberty from memory if it would help convince you of my sincerity. What I'm saying though, is that while historically the case you're making is rock solid, the same cannot be said of America today.
I disagree. We still have a very robust immigration rate, from every corner of the globe - and these people move here because of the opportunities for business and their careers, not simply because of the social welfare programs. Where I live, we have an amazing influx of Asian immigrants, who are quickly assimilating and building very successful businesses, for example.
Quote:
By way of example, you seem to be of the opinion that Sweden is in some sense a more homogenous society than the USA. In many respects you're completely correct, but I think the reasons for the homogeneity aren't what you think. The statistics (or a visit to Stockholm) show that 12.3% of Swedes were born outwith Sweden. By comparison, 12.81% of Americans were born outwith the USA, there isn't a significant difference anymore.
Sorry, but this argument is not convincing. So - 87 percent of Swedes and Americans are native born. But there is a HUGE difference between someone born and bred in, say Maine, and someone born and bred in Oklahoma or Alabama. My point is that considering the size and scope of the US, regardless of whether or not someone was born here - the regional differences are vast - much moreso than the regional differences of Swedes.
Quote:
Forgive me for becoming slightly alarmed when you start talking about 'work ethic' and genetics, but you must appreciate that I can draw only one conclusion? i.e. That you think that within the USA there are some genetically related groups who are in some sense naturally imbued with less of a 'work ethic' than (presumably?) those of a European or Asian background? If that is your opinion (and I hope I've mis-understood you) then I doubt that we're going to be able to agree on very much! There is no known gene for 'work ethic', nor is it at all likely that there is such a thing.
Yes, you've misunderstood me.
I wanted to clarify that MOST of our American ancestors came here willingly - but not all of them did. Those who came here willingly and willingly took on the risks associated with this immigration have a different family history than, say, Native Americans or African Americans, whose family histories are filled with different sorts of challenges and trials. These family histories shape values today, and help shape what motivated or motivates both the ancestors and descendants from these various backgrounds. MOST Americans are the descendants of willing immigrants. This majority has shaped the American psyche quite a bit. That's all I'm saying.
Quote:
There are on the other hand, such things as broken homes, inner city schools and lack of job opportunities. To take them in turn, the largest single factor in relationship breakdowns are financial worries (3). Naturally this causes a vicious cycle of being born poor in a single parent family, growing up to in turn break up with a wife or partner over financial stresses, ushering in the next generation. This in turn leads to disproportionate numbers of disruptive students from unhappy homes in areas blighted by these financial worries, negatively affecting the education of all the people in those areas.
Which came first - the chicken or the egg? Many poverty stricken groups grow up in a matriarchal society - in which a positive male role model has NEVER been present. Poverty didn't cause this breakdown of social structure alone. Values are not built on simply economic scenarios. Values also SHAPE economic scenarios.
Quote:
Finally, in the information age we live in, employers are (understandably) dis-interested in setting up shop in locations where they can't find the numbers of skilled staff necessary to do the job, removing the only positive influence the market economy could bring to the poor. I'm not trying to argue that this cycle is completely insurmountable for individual people, but you surely agree that the majority of the people stuck in it remain in it?
The opportunities are there. People have to embrace the values necessary to take advantage of those opportunities and maximize the outcomes. Otherwise NO AMOUNT of opportunity offered will be effectively utilized.
Quote:
While I completely understand that many Americans such as yourself feel a historical attachment to the traditional conception of yourselves as freedom loving risk takers, but don't you see how much has changed in a world dominated by information sector jobs that require a solid education? Maybe the US hasn't lost enough manufacturing jobs yet for the future to seem clear, but living in a post-industrialised country which went through what America is currently experiencing in the 1980's, I can only warn you that harking back to the Oregon Trail isn't going to change very much.
Sorry, but I'm not talking about the Oregon Trail or even the 20th century, though I noted what seems to be a condescending tone - I'm really hoping though, that you truly misunderstood what I was portraying.
I'm talking about small business development and the spirit of the entrepreneur. You like facts - here are a few:
Quote:
How important are small businesses to the U.S. economy?
Small firms:
• Represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms.
• Employ half of all private sector employees.
• Pay 44 percent of total U.S. private payroll.
• Generated 65 percent of net new jobs over the past 17 years.
• Create more than half of the nonfarm private GDP.
• Hire 43 percent of high tech workers ( scientists, engineers, computer programmers, and others).
• Are 52 percent home-based and 2 percent franchises.
• Made up 97.5 percent of all identified exporters and produced 31 percent of export value in FY 2008.
• Produce 13 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms.
In 2009,there were 27.5 million businesses in the United States, according to Office of Advocacy estimates.The lastest available Census data show that there were 6.0 million firms with employees in 2007 and 21.4 million without employees in 2008. Small firms with fewer than 500 employees represent 99.9 percent of the total ( employers and nonemployers), as the most recent data show there were about 18,311 large businesses in 2007.
Source:Office of Advocacy estimates based on data from the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Census Bureau, and trends from the U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labour Statistics, Business Employment Dynamics. Frequently Asked Questions
Small businesses employ about half of U.S. workers. Of 120.6 million nonfarm private sector workers in 2007, small firms employed 59.9 million and large firms employed 60.7 million.About half of small firm employment is in second-stage companies (10-99 employees), and half is in firms that are 15 years or older. Small firms’ share of employment in rural areas is slightly higher that in urban areas; their share of part-time workers (22 percent) is similar to large firms’ share (19 percent). Small firms’ employment share remains steady since some small firms grow into large firms over time.
Small firms accounted for 65 percent (or 9.8 million) of the 15 million net new jobs created between 1993 and 2009.
Much of the job growth is from fast-growing high-impact firms, which represents about 5-6 percent of all firms and are on average 25 years old.
Source: U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Business Employment Dynamics; Advocacy-funded research by Zoltan Acs, William Parsons and Spencer Tracy, 2008 (www.sba.gov/advo/research/rs328.pdf)
If we're at the point that 99.9% of Americans no longer aspire to the American Dream (which is what I described) then I'll reluctantly take your word for it.
Oh, come on, don't be disingenuous - you know that's not what I said. YOU claimed that 99.9 percent of Americans would "agree with all that you were saying" - which is quite a stretch of a claim. I was simply pointing out that 99.9 percent of Americans don't agree on ANYTHING.
Last edited by KathrynAragon; 11-03-2012 at 09:32 AM..
I disagree. We still have a very robust immigration rate, from every corner of the globe - and these people move here because of the opportunities for business and their careers, not simply because of the social welfare programs. Where I live, we have an amazing influx of Asian immigrants, who are quickly assimilating and building very successful businesses, for example.
What you've just described are foreign immigrants moving to the USA. I haven't argued that there are no foreign born immigrants who move to the USA. What I argued was that the USA does not have particularly sizeable immigration rates compared to the rest of the developed world. Taken as a proportion of the total population, the USA has fewer migrants than Switzerland, Canada, New Zealand, Austria, Luxembourg or Ireland. Most of the developed world has a broadly similar immigration rate to the USA. (1)
The reason we're discussing this is because you argued that the US does not have a history or tradition of rigid social classes. To support your argument, you said that the US has an unprecedented history and tradition of welcoming people of all socio-economic classes and nationalities to immigrate. I agreed with you that as a matter of historical fact, what you say is true. However the statistics I presented to you were to demonstrate that in the present-day, the USA does not have particularly notable rates of immigration.
If we're discussing history, I'd accept that the UK and much of Europe for that matter had a rigid social structure and the USA did not. If we're discussing the present day, then the statistics show that fewer Americans born into poorer households move 'up' the income ladder than in other developed nations.
Quote:
Sorry, but this argument is not convincing. So - 87 percent of Swedes and Americans are native born. But there is a HUGE difference between someone born and bred in, say Maine, and someone born and bred in Oklahoma or Alabama. My point is that considering the size and scope of the US, regardless of whether or not someone was born here - the regional differences are vast - much moreso than the regional differences of Swedes.
Allow me to regain the train of thought here. You were responding to the argument that I made that Government interventions in Sweden had been very effective in increasing social mobility. You argued that such interventions could not succeed in America because the US population is more diverse than Sweden's.
As we're now on the same hymn sheet and appreciate that the Swedish population is not any less diverse in terms of its foreign born population, we can move onto your next point which is that the native population of the USA is so diverse that efforts to increase social mobility could not work.
By way of example, in Sweden, students from poor backgrounds who achieve the necessary grades at school are given grants to encourage them to go onto the best Colleges and Universities in Sweden. The logic is that loans are prohibitive for many students from poorer households, whose families are less able to support their kids in the event that they don't do as well at or end up hating the course that they've chosen. This system is not the equivalent of scholarships which typically cover only a handful of students per year. In Sweden, large sections of the population qualify for this Government led support. Could you explain how regional differences such as climate, or differences between people in Maine or Alabama could conspire to make this system fail in the USA when it works to increase social mobility in Sweden?
Quote:
Which came first - the chicken or the egg? Many poverty stricken groups grow up in a matriarchal society - in which a positive male role model has NEVER been present. Poverty didn't cause this breakdown of social structure alone. Values are not built on simply economic scenarios. Values also SHAPE economic scenarios.
Is it your opinion that there are significant numbers of women in the USA who deliberately have children and do not want the father present to bring up the child? Alternatively, is it your opinion that there are significant numbers of men in the USA who deliberately sire children by mothers they intend from the outset to abandon?
Quote:
The opportunities are there. People have to embrace the values necessary to take advantage of those opportunities and maximize the outcomes. Otherwise NO AMOUNT of opportunity offered will be effectively utilized.
So the statistics showing that opportunities aren't being taken up by a majority of those in poorer sections of society. Do you think that this is because they're lazy or have some character flaw which is preventing them from realising these opportunities?
Quote:
I'm talking about small business development and the spirit of the entrepreneur. You like facts - here are a few:
Thank you I love facts! However, facts are at their most useful in a comparison thread like this where one can see the other side of the coin. For example I could inform you that Lake Michigan contains 1,180 cubic miles of water! (Yes I did look it up.) However if I was going to present this mind-blowing fact in a thread about "which lake is biggest", it would only really make sense if I compared it to something and made an argument out of it, if you see my point?
Quote:
Oh, come on, don't be disingenuous - you know that's not what I said. YOU claimed that 99.9 percent of Americans would "agree with all that you were saying" - which is quite a stretch of a claim. I was simply pointing out that 99.9 percent of Americans don't agree on ANYTHING.
In fairness I said that 99.9% of Americans would agree that, "People will put up with just about any level of destitution so long as they know its temporary and they can work themselves out of it, but people at the bottom who think (often with good reason) that they're going to stay at the bottom turn to despondence, booze, drugs, anti-social behaviour and a slippery slope ending in crime." I'm not trying to be disingenous, what I more or less underlined was the shared feeling amongst people everywhere (not least America) that being able to work oneself out of poverty is one of the most important forms of wealth. I mean that is the American dream...
What you've just described are foreign immigrants moving to the USA. I haven't argued that there are no foreign born immigrants who move to the USA. What I argued was that the USA does not have particularly sizeable immigration rates compared to the rest of the developed world. Taken as a proportion of the total population, the USA has fewer migrants than Switzerland, Canada, New Zealand, Austria, Luxembourg or Ireland. Most of the developed world has a broadly similar immigration rate to the USA.
Per capita, in 2012, the US is ranked 26th in net migration rates - exceeded by many small countries (including Qatar and Zimbabwe, and two larger ones - Australia and Canada. The UK ranks 29th per capita, and since we keep talking about Sweden - Sweden ranks 44th.
The reason we're discussing this is because you argued that the US does not have a history or tradition of rigid social classes. To support your argument, you said that the US has an unprecedented history and tradition of welcoming people of all socio-economic classes and nationalities to immigrate. I agreed with you that as a matter of historical fact, what you say is true. However the statistics I presented to you were to demonstrate that in the present-day, the USA does not have particularly notable rates of immigration.
In light of the information I just provided to you, I'd say that the US has a very healthy rate of net immigration, continuing a notable history and tradition of upwardly mobile entrepreneurs and career business people.
Quote:
If we're discussing history, I'd accept that the UK and much of Europe for that matter had a rigid social structure and the USA did not. If we're discussing the present day, then the statistics show that fewer Americans born into poorer households move 'up' the income ladder than in other developed nations.
Actually, your sources were discussing American MEN for the most part, which leaves out a huge segment of the population. And I will be the first to admit that men from lower socioeconomic classes in the US often remain in those scenarios. Have you noticed a correlation between criminal records, single motherhood, drug usage, etc among that same socioeconomic class? You're saying that low incomes produce those issues. I'm saying that often, poor life choices create financial hardships.
One way to assess the extent of mobility is to ask whether people tend to be better off than their parents were at the same age — whether they experience upward absolute mobility. Research for EMP conducted by my colleagues at the Brookings Institution Julia Isaacs, Isabel Sawhill, and Ron Haskins shows that two-thirds of 40-year-old Americans are in households with larger incomes than their parents had at the same age, even taking into account the fact that the cost of living has risen.[2] That’s pretty impressive, but it actually understates the improvement between generations. Household size declined over these decades, so incomes now are divided up among fewer family members, leaving them better off than bigger households of the past. Another EMP study shows that when incomes are adjusted for household size, four out of five adults today are better off than their parents were at the same age.[3]
The finding of pervasive upward absolute mobility flies in the face of liberal accounts of a stagnant middle class. These accounts generally conflate disappointing growth in men’s earnings with growth in household income, which has been impressive. Growth in women’s earnings has also been impressive, but economic pessimists have twisted these bright spots to fit a gloomy narrative.[4] They claim that household incomes have kept pace only because wives have been forced into work to make up for the shrinking bacon their husbands bring home. That ignores the long-term trend of women’s obtaining more education in industrialized nations around the world, presumably with an intention to put it to use in the work force someday. It also ignores the evidence that married men rationally chose to reduce their work hours as their wives increased theirs (even as single men continued working the same hours), and the fact that employment grew more among the wives of better-educated men than among the wives of less-educated men.[5]
It gives a balanced perspective and supports both our points, by the way.
Quote:
Allow me to regain the train of thought here. You were responding to the argument that I made that Government interventions in Sweden had been very effective in increasing social mobility. You argued that such interventions could not succeed in America because the US population is more diverse than Sweden's.
As we're now on the same hymn sheet and appreciate that the Swedish population is not any less diverse in terms of its foreign born population, we can move onto your next point which is that the native population of the USA is so diverse that efforts to increase social mobility could not work.
That's not the whole picture, and I never claimed or insinuated that it was. So no, we're not on the same hymn sheet at all.
Overall, the US is MUCH more diverse than Sweden - there is much more diversity of terrain, weather, health (this is a big area that genetics play a significant role in), incomes, industries, ethnic groups, religions, geography, etc etc.
Therefore it is much more complex an operation/endeavor to implement effective social programs on a national level in the US than it is in a much smaller, much more homogenous country.
Quote:
By way of example, in Sweden, students from poor backgrounds who achieve the necessary grades at school are given grants to encourage them to go onto the best Colleges and Universities in Sweden. The logic is that loans are prohibitive for many students from poorer households, whose families are less able to support their kids in the event that they don't do as well at or end up hating the course that they've chosen. This system is not the equivalent of scholarships which typically cover only a handful of students per year. In Sweden, large sections of the population qualify for this Government led support. Could you explain how regional differences such as climate, or differences between people in Maine or Alabama could conspire to make this system fail in the USA when it works to increase social mobility in Sweden?
I agree that a solid education is the KEY to upward mobility. Let me answer your question though.
You ask:
Quote:
Could you explain how regional differences such as climate, or differences between people in Maine or Alabama could conspire to make this system fail in the USA when it works to increase social mobility in Sweden?
Absolutely.
Our fifty individual states are the main providers of public education - not our federal government. States have more jurisdiction and control over MANY aspects of government than the federal government has, specifically because the US is so large and so diverse, that we as a people generally believe that local entities can better determine and meet many of the needs of their local constituents. Therefore, educational needs, strengths and weaknesses vary WIDELY from state to state, and even from school district to school district.
We don't see the answer as coming from the federal level - to attempt to meet such varied local needs, capitalize on those strengths, and address those weaknesses from a federal level would add layers and layers of expensive and clumsy bureaucracy.
Quote:
Is it your opinion that there are significant numbers of women in the USA who deliberately have children and do not want the father present to bring up the child? Alternatively, is it your opinion that there are significant numbers of men in the USA who deliberately sire children by mothers they intend from the outset to abandon?
It is my opinion that many people make very poor choices when it comes to mates, and their potential to stick around to raise a child and be a positive role model. They make these choices for a wide variety of reasons - including but definitely not limited to economic reasons.
Quote:
So the statistics showing that opportunities aren't being taken up by a majority of those in poorer sections of society. Do you think that this is because they're lazy or have some character flaw which is preventing them from realising these opportunities?
Sometimes. Sometimes I think that the poor choices of the parents limit the options of the children, which is a tragedy. I think alongside education - nutrition, nurturing (or the lack thereof), substance abuse, the level of criminal activity in an area (and whether or not it is tolerated, encouraged, or prosecuted effectively), prejudices, expectations - all those play critical roles in whether or not a child grows up to escape a cycle of poverty.
Please note that many of the above are the responsibility of PARENTS.
Quote:
In fairness I said that 99.9% of Americans would agree that, "People will put up with just about any level of destitution so long as they know its temporary and they can work themselves out of it, but people at the bottom who think (often with good reason) that they're going to stay at the bottom turn to despondence, booze, drugs, anti-social behaviour and a slippery slope ending in crime." I'm not trying to be disingenous, what I more or less underlined was the shared feeling amongst people everywhere (not least America) that being able to work oneself out of poverty is one of the most important forms of wealth. I mean that is the American dream...
Well, thanks for the clarification. Your original comment was not so clear. Not only that, I do not think that 99.9 percent of Americans would agree with ANY statement - including the one you mention. As an American, I am very aware, along with a big segment of the American population, that booze, drugs, antisocial behavior, and criminal activity do more to KEEP a person in a low socioeconomic class than some sort of invisible class constraint ever will.
Again I agree that the US Government does act to help poor people, but what I'm really trying to get at is that it doesn't do nearly as much as it could (and I'd argue should) to help. So I'm not mis-interpreted here I'll re-state that the UK doesn't have a lot to be proud of in this respect either. When I entered this discussion I had assumed that Tvdxer was (he'll forgive me for saying) a bit of a simpleton because he seemed to conclude that American poor people have a decent time of it because they can afford consumer electronics. Tvdxer proved my initial assessment of him to be way off the mark with his well-researched post on the living standards of various socio-economic groups in the Duluth area, but I feel like I haven't really gotten my point across.
I wonder if the current American populace aren't to some extent under-valuing the effect of social mobility as the most important form of wealth. People will put up with just about any level of destitution so long as they know its temporary and they can work themselves out of it, but people at the bottom who think (often with good reason) that they're going to stay at the bottom turn to despondence, booze, drugs, anti-social behaviour and a slippery slope ending in crime. I'm perhaps doing a dis-service to Americans here, because I know that 99.9% of Americans will agree with everything I've just said. However, I also know that Americans are going to start disagreeing once I propose Government led (& tax funded) solutions to the problem. This isn't a uniquely American phenomenon, there are plenty of Brits who are skeptical of Government interventions as well, but the scale of the mistrust of Government and its resulting effects are uniquely American.
I find this confusing. Most Americans will acknowledge that a lack of social mobility causes crime and a raft of social problems. Most Americans are happy to fund a police force to catch and deter criminals. Yet a great many Americans (more than any other nationality I'm familiar with) object profusely to the US Government spending even the paltry sums it does at present to help people onto the greasy pole. I could understand if they were criticising policies which were inefficient or ineffective, but I don't see that happen very often, mostly they seem to allude to any interventionist policies as being detrimental rather than vital. If re-distributive economies like in Scandinavia didn't exist, I could maybe understand it, but because there are clear lessons the USA and UK can learn from these other countries I struggle to understand the contentiousness.
I bring this back up because I have attempted to explain WHY Americans feel so strongly about federal government programs and states' rights - a concept that may seem very foreign to most Europeans and citizens of the UK.
Americans are largely from stock who ESCAPED oppressive and far-reaching governments. Our very tragic and costly Civil War was fought over the issues of states' rights vs Federal government intervention. Lest you assume that we consider these events "ancient history," I can assure you that many Americans don't consider them obsolete concepts or irrelevant events at all.
Overall, we have HUGE social programs in place, at both state and federal levels. Here's a chart which shows the breakdown of our federal budget:
Considering this, we're often loathe to INCREASE these percentages, when our federal budget is so heavily earmarked to social programs already.
Hope this helps you understand more of "the American mindset." Generalities of course, hold many exceptions to the rule, which is precisely why centralized government is often perceived as wasteful, and even threatening, to many Americans.
Gotta love American right wingers. Always blinded by what they perceive as "facts".
Facts are pesky little buggars sometimes, aren't they?
Do you honestly have nothing better to say than this?
By the way, I am not saying that the US does things BETTER than the UK, or Sweden for that matter. I'm explaining the PERSPECTIVE of a large portion of the US population, which is really what this thread is about. Please try to keep up.
Facts are pesky little buggars sometimes, aren't they?
Do you honestly have nothing better to say than this?
By the way, I am not saying that the US does things BETTER than the UK, or Sweden for that matter. I'm explaining the PERSPECTIVE of a large portion of the US population, which is really what this thread is about. Please try to keep up.
There is no question that the state is becoming too large in the US. The question is how to increase growth and reduce its size without hurting the economy to the extent that Britain and the EU are doing right now..
There is no question that the state is becoming too large in the US. The question is how to increase growth and reduce its size without hurting the economy to the extent that Britain and the EU are doing right now..
Sorry - not quite following your train of thought. Can you please clarify your statement?
Gotta love American right wingers. Always blinded by what they perceive as "facts".
Gotta love British Labourites/Lib Democrats. Think their way is the only correct way Stupid posts get stupid responses. There's the P&OC forum for you to peruse at your leisure, more ad hominem, red herrings, and non sequiturs than you know what you can do with.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Stupid posts get stupid responses. There's the P&OC forum for you to peruse at your leisure, more ad hominem, red herrings, and non sequiturs than you know what you can do with.
