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 think generally, right wingers think along the lines of "If I ever become rich one day, I want x freedoms."
Whereas those on the left, including in Europe, tend to think "If I ever lose my job, have an accident, or some other worst case scenario happens, I want my family and I to be free from fear and worrying about death or suffering, etc".
"I think" I suggest you quit trying to think what others think.
I think most european countries are safer. i don't know exactly how the crime rates compare to the US, someone can look it up.
freedom includes living in security. if you are always afraid some nut with a gun might shoot and kill you or your kids or the police can stop you and pull you out of the car and taser you - well that is not freedom, is it?
"I think most european countries are safer. i don't know exactly how the crime rates compare to the US, someone can look it up."
Instead of "I think", why don't YOU look it upor are you afraid that what you "think" is wrong?
The U.S. tax rates and revenue are among the lowest in developed, industrialized nations and particularly among European nations.
Unfortunately, monetary inflation is also a tax so if you consider the amount of money the Fed "prints" the tax on the people is a lot higher than just the tax rates. Then there's regulations that increase the cost of living and business that the governments of both continents keep churning out like toilet paper.
Try doing that in Germany or the UK. And while Scandinavia is a bit better than much of Europe on hunting, I can see from a quick read ( http://www.face.eu/sites/default/files/denmark_en_2.pdf ) that there's still a lease system for the right to hunt in Denmark. And insurance requirements. Which will put it out of reach of people who could hunt in the U.S. Did your brother in law inherit some property or know someone with some property well?
In Germany it's really not uncommon that lower income people have a game license. Hunting is probably more common among less educated people, and those are normally not rich.
For whatever it's worth, there's the annual Index of Economic Freedom. The US placed at #12 in 2015. Only European countries to place better in 2015 were Switzerland, Estonia and Ireland.
The US does however do better as it relates to business and labor freedoms. The US loses major points in government spending, especially on defense.
I think most European countries operate on civil law unlike the US that functions on common law. This difference has profound distinctions in outcomes.
The differences are vast. I'm sure they were covered in this thread.
I agree that this IS NOT the place to learn about the differences since city data tends to lean to the right.
Socialism is the biggest difference. Some things are better over in Europe but give me the good old USA. We have freedoms here and life is generally easy. I know people who have immigrated from Ireland and they will all agree that America really is the land of opportunity.
In December we met with a friend who was visiting from France and she complained about the high income tax rate there but she was happy that she just had the last few years off from work PAID to raise her baby. She will be heading back to work soon. It is terrific that she had so much maternity leave but someone has to pay for it.
Back after september 11th 2001 we visited France and brought a Tshirt to the same woman above and the shirt had a small American flag on it and she said that she couldn't wear it. If you remember after the terrorist attacks on 9/11 our whole country wanted revenge but not so in France. There was a real anti american / hate the war mongers Bush and Cheney vibe going on there.
That really struck me as a huge difference in our countries. America was ambushed and in return we struck back. IN France I guess they would not have since they didn't approve.
look at what was going on in the British parliament last week, they all got up one by one and denounced Trump and stopped short of a vote to ban him from the country.
Trump tells it like it is and his ideas are very popular but in England he is despicable.
Europe is a nice place to visit but I wouldn't want to live there.
Lol
Europe is not socialist. In fact, some argue that Scandinavia's well being is not a result of safety nets but its affinity to market liberalization.
"I think most european countries are safer. i don't know exactly how the crime rates compare to the US, someone can look it up."
Instead of "I think", why don't YOU look it upor are you afraid that what you "think" is wrong?
I think it doesn't make sense to compare statistics about crime rates. Because every country uses different definitions for certain crimes. And people is some countries are more likely to report a crime to the police than people in other countries.
It's surely common sense that there is a lot more crime in the U.S. than in most European countries. Most people in Europe would never ask whether a certain area, town, neighborhood is safe or not. Because crime is for most people nothing to worry about.
It's completely different in the U.S. The CD-forum is full of postings with questions about the crime rate in certain areas. There are even statistics about the crime rates in different neighborhoods. Such things are almost completely unknown in Europe. Or just read random posts in this forum. No other country than the U.S. has such a large amount of crazy people with so extremely outlandish views. Of course those people will more likely commit a crime. Some people seem to be on psychotropic drugs. More people seem to be unable to solve a dispute peacefully. For example I have never heard about a fight in a German supermarket. But it doesn't seem so uncommon in the U.S.
And of course the huge income inequality in the U.S. will lead to more crime compared to other developed countries.
All,
Thank you for all the replies. Because of work I can only check it certain times-- but I've read all the replies now.
It seems to me there is a lot of disagreement as to what is truth-- no surprise people have different experiences and interrupt thing differently. Some quick comments and questions:
1. The nanny state, that some call what the newer generation of Americans are, is overly exaggerated IMO. Maybe people like more handouts than what the older generation wanted but I have not seen where a family on welfare (without the father) of 5+ lives in a picket fence/suburban home and drives an SUV. They probably live in the ghetto or inner city. Point being anyone getting handouts from the government is not getting the same amount as those who work full time jobs and live a comfortable lifestyle in the suburbs. I think this is how it should be. I believe in a safety net.
2. As I suspected I would argue that most European countries are free. They just are less materialistic -- and would rather ensure they are set up for retirement age than Americans-- who like more "things". I am very concerned about when the "older" baby boomer generation + my generation retires (I'm 42)-- many live paycheck to paycheck with little or no savings. The damn is going to break for a lot of these people.
3. With point one and two above I have tell you all I still lean to the right (I'm obviously not a tea partier though). I'm a Christian and respect others opinions. I know the country is changing some and I'm good with that as long as we are helping our citizens. If I have to pay more taxes to help families or people because they can't work or have some sort of problem or are down on their luck them I'm fine with that. But they absolutely should not be getting the same amount as people that who have built companies and are very successful in their careers (again, goes back to the safety net).
Last edited by SeminoleTom; 01-30-2016 at 08:27 AM..
All,
Thank you for all the replies. Because of work I can only check it certain times-- but I've read all the replies now.
It seems to me there is a lot of disagreement as to what is truth-- no surprise people have different experiences and interrupt thing differently. Some quick comments and questions:
1. The nanny state, that some call what the newer generation of Americans are, is overly exaggerated IMO. Maybe people like more handouts than what the older generation wanted but I have not seen where a family on welfare (without the father) of 5+ lives in a picket fence/suburban home and drives an SUV. They probably live in the ghetto or inner city. Point being anyone getting handouts from the government is not getting the same amount as those who work full time jobs and live a comfortable lifestyle in the suburbs. I think this is how it should be. I believe in a safety net.
2. As I suspected I would argue that most European countries are free. They just are less materialistic -- and would rather ensure they are set up for retirement age than Americans-- who like more "things". I am very concerned about when the "older" baby boomer generation + my generation retires (I'm 42)-- many live paycheck to paycheck with little or no savings. The damn is going to break for a lot of these people.
3. With point one and two above I have tell you all I still lean to the right (I'm obviously not a tea partier though). I'm a Christian and respect others opinions. I know the country is changing some and I'm good with that as long as we are helping our citizens. If I have to pay more taxes to help families or people because they can't work or have some sort of problem or are down on their luck them I'm fine with that. But they absolutely should not be getting the same amount as people that who have built companies and are very successful in their careers (again, goes back to the safety net).
Luckily you don't (obviously you have to now because you're forced to, but that's not the most efficient way - and definitely not the only way as some would suggest).
I think of it like this...would anyone come up with this solution on their own? We want to help people in need, so instead of giving our money to people in need, let's vote for someone to take our money by force, have some of it spent on bureaucrat salaries, have some skimmed off the top for other purposes, and the rest is given to people who may need it, or may be cheating the system.
I think people project onto others the idea that nobody would help if they aren't forced to. If the majority is voting for a welfare state, and most who oppose it are in favor of helping directly instead of a state program, why do we vote for the middleman?
Its like that scene in Office Space where they ask the guy what his job is and he explains that he takes the paperwork from the engineers to the customers, and they ask why the engineers can't just take it to customers themselves. He explains that engineers aren't good with people, so he handles it because he's a people person..so they're like "so you physically take the paperwork to the customers?" "Well...no, my secretary does that..." "So what exactly do you do here?" And then he gets all upset. Unnecessary middleman, just like people running the welfare system.
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.
