Agent to USA: "Yeah, about those bioweapons labs..."

[Simon666]

Given their potential effect, 500 is more than "a few". And aren't those the same weapons Iraq swore they completely rid themselves of? Who's to say there aren't more still buried in the desert? We kinda ended up with a distraction thanks to Iranian and AQ backed butthole terrorists.

I didn't know it was 500, I stopped following the news about it. Before 2005, when the US gave up their search for WMD, the count was around two or three as far as I remember. It appears more has indeed been discovered. However, regarding their potential effect, small. There's probably indeed more buried in the desert if you look for it. See below, emphasis in bold mine. Regarding to swear to completely get rid of, see underlined part.

[quote author=Wikipedia]
Beginning in 2003, the ISG had uncovered remnants of Iraq's 1980s-era WMD programs. On June 21, 2006 Rick Santorum claimed that "we have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons", citing a declassified June 6 letter to Pete Hoekstra saying that since the 2003 invasion, a total of "approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent" had been found scattered throughout the country.[109][110]

The Washington Post reported that "the U.S. military announced in 2004 in Iraq that several crates of the old shells had been uncovered and that they contained a blister agent that was no longer active." It said the shells "had been buried near the Iranian border, and then long forgotten, by Iraqi troops during their eight-year war with Iran, which ended in 1988." [111]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Small_number_of_degraded_chemical_weapons_recovered[/quote]

 

[Orionblamblam]

In my country in (Western-Europe) everyone has to have a health-insurance by governmental law, so that everyone can have at least some healthcare, even poor people.

And the poorest person in the US *also* has access to free government healthcare. AQnyone telling you different is a liar.

at least you won't see rows of homeless people laying in our streets, or people cueing up for a free warm meal, like is the case in some US cities.

In general, those US cities with the highest populations of homeless are those cities that hand out the most free goodies to the homeless. Still, perhaps the US should look into providing free one-way transportation for our homelss to your cities. Everyone would be happy then.

Why should people be made comfortable with poverty?

I think perhaps you should look up what Franklin had to say on the subject.

we instituted the "Great Society" welfare state programs, and lost the space program.

I can't imagine the US lost the space program because of some few welfare programs. A US without the space program is a pitty, but I think much other reasons are the cause for that, not some healthcare.

A *few* welfare programs? Look at the US federal budget. It is now dominated by Social Security (FDR's "New Deal") Medicare/Medicaid/Unemployment (LBJ's "Great Society). The DoD is a small fraction; NASA is a tiny sliver.

 

[Orionblamblam]

There isn't much willingness to support the less blessed in society.

The "less blessed?" Is this the new way to excuse laziness? That they are "less blessed" by personal motivation?

Watch what happens when natural disasters hit (hurricanes, earthquakes, etc.). Americans of their own free will break out their checkbooks and willingly pay to help. It's being forced at gunpoint to pay substantial, never-ending and growing fractions of our income to support people *permanently* that irritates many of us.

 

[sublight]

I think this chart is a bit easier to interpret than the pie chart above:

http://www.wallstats.com/deathandtaxes/

 

[starviking]

The US is the only nation in the history of mankind "born in freedom" and that commitment to freedom while under assault shall never perish. "Give me liberty or give me death" is not a catchphrase but ingrained in the soul of the nation.

First, I'd think citizens of the Irish Republic and African-Americans (amongst others) would disagree with you as to the "born in freedom" comment.

Thanks for the non-sequitur I did not say citizens I said nation born in freedom. The US was a free nation at is founding the only one in history

Not really a non-sequitor Bobbymike, citizens of other nations are free to dispute the meaning of "Born in freedom". Also, what is a 'free nation' exactly?

 

[sferrin]

I think this chart is a bit easier to interpret than the pie chart above:

http://www.wallstats.com/deathandtaxes/

You mean aside from the fact that it mixes entitlements in with necessities in order to blur the picture? :

 

[sublight]

I think this chart is a bit easier to interpret than the pie chart above:

http://www.wallstats.com/deathandtaxes/

You mean aside from the fact that it mixes entitlements in with necessities in order to blur the picture? :

So its degenerated to the point where you believe pie charts are engineered for political slants. Wow. I give up.....

 

[Orionblamblam]

So its degenerated to the point where you believe pie charts are engineered for political slants.

Pie charts often are so engineered. But this *particular* graph is just plain *poorly* engineered, as it attempts to mash a pie chart showing revenues with a non-pie-chart showing outlays as relative sizes of department logos. Bleah.

Here's a "politically slanted" pie chart of the US FedGuv budget:

A chart such as this is used to show how disproportionately hugenormous the DoD budget is compared to the res tof the fedguv budget. But it *intentionally* leaves out things like Social Security, Medicare/caid, debt servicing.

 

[sublight]

If ya'll would take a moment to follow the link for the big picture. I just posted the "summary".....

http://www.wallstats.com/deathandtaxes/

 

[Avimimus]

you have to accept that people will be really "anti-American" and have a good reason (whereas right now, where most of us are just faking it).

If America is going to be seen as an Evil Empire, we might as well get something out of it.

The problem is that the U.S. is pretty well loved around the world. If it weren't for some of the more colonial activities/interferences and if a few powerful Americans emphasized more respect for self-determination/other ways of doing things within other countries we wouldn't even have such a term...

I've always found it odd how the majority of Americans blow the slightest criticism out of proportion. Evil empire...? We should start calling Canada that (although we might take it as encouragement that someone has noticed us and try conquering the world).

 

[Arjen]

In post #1 of this thread I read this:

From where I sit, I can almost guarantee that this will be used as another attempt by the media to undermine anything remotely connected with Bush II and prop up the New American Socialist.

I hope you'll pardon me, I'm from the other side of the pond. I'm being fed increasingly vitriolic comments about American politics by big American media on both sides of the USA's political divide. Fine. It's been an education. Now it's spilling over into SPF, and I feel that the US citizens contributing in this thread seem less diverse in their opinions than the media I mentioned earlier. Particularly on Health Care. I guess that comes with the territory. Gather people with an abnormal interest in one subject, and there is some chance their opinions on other subject are atypical too. Then again, other characterisations of Obama than ´the New American Socialist´ may find favour with the less vocal US citizens here.

From my side of the pond, usage of the term ´the New American Socialist´ when speaking of the current US president seems highly inappropriate. But then, I´m used to European socialism in its many forms and guises. Have fun about Health Care. Don´t burn the house down.

 

[Avimimus]

There isn't much willingness to support the less blessed in society.

The "less blessed?" Is this the new way to excuse laziness? That they are "less blessed" by personal motivation?

Watch what happens when natural disasters hit (hurricanes, earthquakes, etc.). Americans of their own free will break out their checkbooks and willingly pay to help. It's being forced at gunpoint to pay substantial, never-ending and growing fractions of our income to support people *permanently* that irritates many of us.

Just a note you guys might find interesting: Countries with less inequality and more of an emphasis on looking after the weak tend to have higher levels of trust among citizens (and low rank soldiers). If you want to win a war it helps to look after the incompetent or unlucky in peacetime.

Btw. In Canada, our more extensive welfare and healthcare systems only appear to be becoming noticeably more expensive as a result of cutbacks to other areas in government. The level of services provided aren't really that high and people don't like to stay on them (with a few exceptions). Even those with dental insurance from work will avoid a $1000 treatment because they have to cough up 20%. People are like that. Especially in cultures which emphasize self-interest less (and are thus less tolerant of taking advantage of the services offered).

 

[Orionblamblam]

The problem is that the U.S. is pretty well loved around the world.

Agreed. That is a problem.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Countries with less inequality and more of an emphasis on looking after the weak tend to have higher levels of trust among citizens

Then that settles it: bring on the inequality.

Less equality: more drive for improvement.
Less looking after the weak: more incentive for the weak to unweak themselves.
Less trust: more competition.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Now it's spilling over into SPF...

I fully expect threadlock momentarily. So enjoy it while ya can!

Gather people with an abnormal interest in one subject, and there is some chance their opinions on other subject are atypical too.

How do you know the opinions are "atypical?" Note that the "atypical" point of view on the role of government just won the bulk of the recent national elections. Do not mistake the media for the people.

Then again, other characterisations of Obama than ´the New American Socialist´ may find favour with the less vocal US citizens here.

Well, "second term of the Carter administration" might be applicable...

, usage of the term ´the New American Socialist´ when speaking of the current US president seems highly inappropriate

Agreed. There's nothing all that new about him. He's old-school 60's college Marxist.

 

[bobbymike]

The US's first political document outlined a nation, for the first time, where the individual was sovereign "endowed by his creator" on the other side of the pond the people were subjects of monarchs with their rights based largely of his or her whim. Now it you cannot see that as a MASSIVE difference then I cannot explain it more clearly.

The second point was from a prior post about the plight of African Americans. Yes slavery will forever be a blight on the US but the US fought a civil war that killed 600,000 of its own to end that blight. I believe that was 150 years ago. Now my question, with all due respect to my European colleagues who are worried about the plight of minorities in America, well two points: 1) Would you have rather been a Jew or Gypsy or Ukrainian in Europe in the 1930's and 40's or an African American in the US at that same time? 2) European political theorists brought forth the two greatest genocidal and murderous political systems in the history of mankind about 80 years ago that only ended by external conflict both hot and cold and not because their own citizens fought for the change (although there were obviously brave souls within these regimes opposed to them at their zenith) In fact the majority of the citizens thought rather highly of the systems.

My final post on this subject back to aviation and defense technology woo hoo ;D

 

[Arjen]

How do you know the opinions are "atypical?"

I don't. Short of crossing the pond to find out for myself, I have to go on what the media feed me.

second term of the Carter administration

You might be right, but again, for someone from Europe, still no socialist.

old-school 60's college Marxist

We grew our own here. They were *very* different. I did some comparative research in the matter.

Obama doesn't call himself a socialist, some of his opponents call him that. I have noticed very few, if any, US politicians who would call themselves socialist. Rightly so. Looking at it from my perspective, very few, if any, US politicians merit the term.

I fully expect threadlock momentarily. So enjoy it while ya can!

It's a blast.

 

[Orionblamblam]

We grew our own here. They were *very* different.

The US and Europe uses the same terms for very different things. "Right wing," for instance. In Europe, the Fascists like Hitler and the Nazis, seem to be thought of as "right wing." But by all the definitions used in America, fascism is by definition *left* wing, as American use of right/left is based on whether you want large (left) or small (right) government. Small governments pretty much by definition cannot be fascist, thus it's impossible to be both right wing and fascist. Best as I can tell, in Europe right & left are more about nationalism than the size and scope of government. Since Americans have long since gotten over that (sure, Illinois drivers make fun of Iowa drivers, but it's not like you need a passport to cross the Mississippi), it's not a meaningful metric in American politics.

By European standards, Obama might not be a socialist, but by American standards he's screamingly so. Do not listen to his (or any politicians) Offical Statements. Listen to what they say when they're caught off guard, or think they're speaking off the record, or look at their writings from before they thoguht they'd actually be Someone Important. Look at the laws they try to pass.

 

[Arjen]

Best as I can tell, in Europe right & left are more about nationalism than the size and scope of government.

Nationalism is part of the right/left divide, but on the whole, state-interventionism is very much ingrained in European socialism. There's also a North/South divide in European politics, with the South being traditionally more interventionist. And there's a protestant/catholic divide.

Then there's the liberals. Same word all over Europe, sometimes it means about (but not quite) the same as in the USA. Sometimes, well, plain conservative.

The English and the Americans, what's that expression again? Divided by the same language? Engels is niet mijn moedertaal, so I'm at even more of a disadvantage. Like most Europeans. I try to read between the lines.

it's not like you need a passport to cross the Mississippi

I can travel from Andalucia to Lapland without once having to show my passport. There is some progress in Europe.

 

[SOC]

From my side of the pond, usage of the term ´the New American Socialist´ when speaking of the current US president seems highly inappropriate. But then, I´m used to European socialism in its many forms and guises.

I find it amusing that my attempt at political humor has caused this much consternation. Consider this. Given that the term "socialist" often carries a negative light in many circles, how much of the problem is not with the characterization of Obama as a Socialist, but that derogatory terms are being thrown at an American President who was elected in no small part because his platform was often the opposite of the former Bush administration?

Have fun about Health Care. Don´t burn the house down.

We'll see. For what it's worth, I personally find it offensive that as a lower middle class individual who has worked hard for his money, including by being shot at by Iraqis, that I am now being told to give up more of my money to coddle individuals incapable of caring for themselves through increases in socialist programs such as a national health care. If I make more money than you, then hell yes, I deserve a better standard of living and care. Part of my tax money going towards welfare is bad enough.

 

[Orionblamblam]

...derogatory terms are being thrown at an American President who was elected in no small part because his platform was often the opposite of the former Bush administration?

Remember when Bush was talking up an invasion of Iraq and many pundits and editorial writers from off-shore would write about him disparagingly and refer to him as a "cowboy," as if that was supposed to be a bad thing? Ah, good times, good times...

 

[Arjen]

Cowboy and socialist, in different circles, actually are derogatory. Same goes for 'pedestrian'.

derogatory terms are being thrown at an American President

Which is OK, as long as it's your own side that's doing the namecalling. Getting called names is part of the job-description for politicians. It's a dog's life.

 

[martinbayer]

Best as I can tell, in Europe right & left are more about nationalism than the size and scope of government. Since Americans have long since gotten over that (sure, Illinois drivers make fun of Iowa drivers, but it's not like you need a passport to cross the Mississippi), it's not a meaningful metric in American politics.

Since both Illinois and Iowa are part of the same nation (the United States of America) and not separate nation states themselves, and the same federal government rules on both sides of the Mississippi, the intra-US passport argument completely misses the point. The real metric of nationalism in the USA and its potential correlation to the political divide and party politics are right/left differences in relation(s) to other countries, starting with neighbors like Mexico or Cuba, and just looking at the partisan positions for example with respect to the ongoing immigration debate or the republican initiative to alter the 14th Amendment indicate that Americans (or at least the right side of the US political spectrum) are nowhere near having "long since gotten over that".

Martin

 

[Avimimus]

The problem is that the U.S. is pretty well loved around the world.

Agreed. That is a problem.

Made me laugh (in a non-mocking way). You guys would make one hell of a scary rogue state (assuming you became roguier than you are now).

Countries with less inequality and more of an emphasis on looking after the weak tend to have higher levels of trust among citizens

Then that settles it: bring on the inequality.

Less equality: more drive for improvement.
Less looking after the weak: more incentive for the weak to unweak themselves.
Less trust: more competition.

...which means that you are fighting amongst yourselves when the enemy comes...

 

[Orionblamblam]

You guys would make one hell of a scary rogue state

Damned straight.

...which means that you are fighting amongst yourselves when the enemy comes...

So we'd be prepared, well-armed, and in no mood for outside intervention.

 

[SOC]

The real metric of nationalism in the USA and its potential correlation to the political divide and party politics are right/left differences in relation(s) to other countries, starting with neighbors like Mexico or Cuba, and just looking at the partisan positions for example with respect to the ongoing immigration debate or the republican initiative to alter the 14th Amendment indicate that Americans (or at least the right side of the US political spectrum) are nowhere near having "long since gotten over that".
Martin

A good bit about the immigration debate is less about nationalism and more about wanting to actually punish criminals for being, well, criminals. It's not an immigration debate, it's an illegal immigration debate.

Made me laugh (in a non-mocking way). You guys would make one hell of a scary rogue state (assuming you became roguier than you are now).

We shouldn't go so far as to be a rogue state, but I personally believe we should trend towards isolationism for about a decade or so. Not complete isolationism, but basically ignoring the rest of the world's problems in order to fix the growing number of domestic issues we've got.

...which means that you are fighting amongst yourselves when the enemy comes...

Relatively certain political infighting doesn't affect the launch sequence of an ICBM.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Since both Illinois and Iowa are part of the same nation (the United States of America) and not separate nation states themselves...

Thus proving my point. The various States that came together to form the USA *were* distinct nation states themselves. Had a war about it and everything. We largely got over it.

 

[SOC]

Remember when Bush was talking up an invasion of Iraq and many pundits and editorial writers from off-shore would write about him disparagingly and refer to him as a "cowboy," as if that was supposed to be a bad thing? Ah, good times, good times...

How times have changed. Now if you belittle the President, often times you get called a racist.

 

[Arjen]

If Michelle Obama had been elected, you'd have been a misogynist too. Consider yourself lucky.

 

[Orionblamblam]

If Michelle Obama had been elected, you'd have been a misogynist too. Consider yourself lucky.

That's why many were hoping Condi Rice would run and win.

 

[martinbayer]

Thus proving my point. The various States that came together to form the USA *were* distinct nation states themselves. Had a war about it and everything. We largely got over it.

As far as I can tell, there's a good number of people in the South that would vehemently disagree with that assessment ;D. But even if it were true, one of the many European analogies to that would be the fact that Bavaria and Prussia, both speaking the same language, used to be separate kingdoms and were on opposite sides in the Austro-Prussian War, but both joined the German Empire in 1871, and now they (in case of Prussia, at least parts of it) form federal states of Germany and coexist peacefully, which in your logic would automatically prove that Germany got over nationalism a long time ago - a sweeping conclusion I would hesitate to draw from such a trivial example, especially since the developments in the thirties and fourties of last century unfortunately dramatically proved otherwise. By extension, the fact that Iowa and Illinois now get along doesn't prove anything about current US nationalism.

Martin

 

[Orionblamblam]

Germany got over nationalism a long time ago

Don't mention the war.

Seriously, I'd hardly compare Bavaria and Prussia to, say, Maine and Georgia.

 

[martinbayer]

Seriously, I'd hardly compare Bavaria and Prussia to, say, Maine and Georgia.

Me neither - I actually compared them to your example of Iowa and Illinois, as should have been clear from my post ;D.

But seriously, I see your point - both Prussia and Bavaria ended serfdom already in the early 1800s while they were still separate entities .

Martin

 

[Dreamfighter]

Obviously the main difference between Europe and the USA, as is evidenced by the fact that many US citizens have problems with being "forced" to pay (higher)healthcare-taxes and by the comments here, is the willingness to contribute to a national fund that is used to pay all sorts of care (education, medical treatment, etc) for fellow citizens that can't affort such care themselves.
So "the less blessed" as I called them, are called "lazy people" who only live to profit from the earnings of hardworking Americans.
Well, I can't speak from experience, but I'm pretty sure the big majority of these "lazies" would prefer to have a job and a decent income, instead of living of wellfare. Oh yes, there are some lazy ones that just don't feel like working and earning their own money, you have such people everywhere. But are they numerous? I'm convinced they're not.

So what about people like listed below (only a few examples):

* people who had an accident and aren't able to work anymore?
* people who were born with a handicap?
* people who lost their job because of outsourcing labour to low-wage countries, or due to a financial/economic crach, or due to bad management?
* people who fought in a war and came home with mental issues?
* people who were victim of natural or man-induced catastrophes?
* etc.

Maybe they should be deported?
Hmm... that sounds like:

1) A "certain regime" in the 1930's and 1940's performed here in Europe. (Ooops! Shoudn't mention the War)

2):

perhaps the US should look into providing free one-way transportation for our homelss to your cities. Everyone would be happy then.

Sorry, no place: Auschwitz & Co were permanently closed in 1944 (by Americans and the Allies).

 

[quellish]

To get back closer to the original topic.....

1. The assessment of the intelligence community before IRAQI FREEDOM was that Iraq either still had an indigenous WMD manufacturing capability, or was retaining the ability to reconstitute it quickly once sanctions ended. This was largely correct:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/60minutes/main3749494_page6.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

2. Saddam went to great lengths to project an image of strength as a defensive measure. Saddam saw it as advantageous to look as though his WMD programs were active to deter Iran. He was not as concerned about appeasing the US or UN, which was a great miscalculation on his part.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/60minutes/main3749494_page4.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

 

[SOC]

Obviously the main difference between Europe and the USA, as is evidenced by the fact that many US citizens have problems with being "forced" to pay (higher)healthcare-taxes and by the comments here, is the willingness to contribute to a national fund that is used to pay all sorts of care (education, medical treatment, etc) for fellow citizens that can't affort such care themselves.

Maybe our unwillingness derives from the considerably larger population. It costs way more for us to do it, taking away from things that actually matter.

So "the less blessed" as I called them, are called "lazy people" who only live to profit from the earnings of hardworking Americans.

You've got it backwards. The "lazies" are in large part the product of liberal Democrats constantly providing them more and more incentives to leech from the system, and thereby vote Democrat. It's the politicians who profit from the people, not the people necessarily existing to profit from the system.

Well, I can't speak from experience, but I'm pretty sure the big majority of these "lazies" would prefer to have a job and a decent income, instead of living of wellfare. Oh yes, there are some lazy ones that just don't feel like working and earning their own money, you have such people everywhere. But are they numerous? I'm convinced they're not.

Part of the problem is that they purposely take actions to profit from the system.

So what about people like listed below (only a few examples):

1 people who had an accident and aren't able to work anymore?
2 people who were born with a handicap?
3 people who lost their job because of outsourcing labour to low-wage countries, or due to a financial/economic crach, or due to bad management?
4 people who fought in a war and came home with mental issues?
5 people who were victim of natural or man-induced catastrophes?

1. Depends on the circumstances. If you're permanently disabled and no longer useful at any skill whatsoever, that's one thing. If you break your leg and will miss a month of standing behind the Taco Bell counter, you can always sell yourself to a union to get benefits covering that.
2. The family's burden to pay, not mine. How often do you know beforehand anyway these days? That roughly translates to things you are directly bringing upon yourself.
3. Tough crap, that's called capitalism.
4. You already get disability benefits and care.
5. That's called insurance.

Maybe they should be deported?

Only if they're here illegally. If that is the case, then yes, immediately.

1) A "certain regime" in the 1930's and 1940's performed here in Europe. (Ooops! Shoudn't mention the War)

2):
Sorry, no place: Auschwitz & Co were permanently closed in 1944 (by Americans and the Allies).

1. Wow, now I'm a Nazi for not wanting to let others take more of my money away. Wow.
2. That's called "doing something" rather than Chamberlaining your way into a huge international mess.

 

[Orionblamblam]

So "the less blessed" as I called them, are called "lazy people" who only live to profit from the earnings of hardworking Americans.

What do you call someone who demands to receive something he did not work to earn?

Well, I can't speak from experience, but I'm pretty sure the big majority of these "lazies" would prefer to have a job and a decent income, instead of living of wellfare.

A very large number of the chronically welfare-ridden disagree. Look at Britain. IIRC, there are several *million* who have been on the dole for more than a decade. How to explain that?

Sorry, no place: Auschwitz & Co were permanently closed in 1944 (by Americans and the Allies).

Ah. So your solution to the homeless issue would be to exterminate them, rather than just let your productive citizens pay for them? What's that remind me of... hmmm... http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=7270

 

[Arjen]

There is a lot of uninformed guessing going on around here, and little substantiation. Godwin's law is in effect again, I've noticed. I would like to point out the systems of the USA and the European countries have evolved in some democratic process, and all seem to be functioning to some extent. Public debt as a percentage of GDP as an indicator of economic health does not give ground for much pride on either side of the Atlantic.

There are advantages to the various European policies, as well as to the US policy. I am happy to stay where I am. Last year I was the recipient of some fairly advanced medical care which would have been well over what I could afford out of my own pocket. I am part of a society that has chosen to finance medical care in one particular way, with some form of mandatory insurance. I was in favour of that system before people started poking about in my head. I am happy to continue paying for that system that has now served me so well.

You make your choices, you live with the results.

 

[Dreamfighter]

Maybe our unwillingness derives from the considerably larger population. It costs way more for us to do it, taking away from things that actually matter.

My point was that the unwillingness rather finds it's origins in a different view on social matters between Europe and the US. AFAIK, the USA is (was) viewed by many Americans as "the land of opportunity where one is able to build a successfull life if he's willing to work for it".
I'm just not convinced that such reasoning is in accordance with reality, but hey, that's just my opinion.

In the West, a larger population should mean a larger GDP. If not, something's very wrong.

The "lazies" are in large part the product of liberal Democrats constantly providing them more and more incentives to leech from the system, and thereby vote Democrat.

I agree with you on that lazy people will keep trying to profit from a social system.
I just don't think that everyone who has trouble in life an needs some way of social care is a "lazy" as "Dr. House" calls them, and I certainly don't think their number is so large that it is responsable for the way the healthcare / social system (dis)functions, weither in the US or in Europe.

It's the politicians who profit from the people, not the people necessarily existing to profit from the system.

True.

So what about people like listed below (only a few examples):

1 people who had an accident and aren't able to work anymore?
2 people who were born with a handicap?
3 people who lost their job because of outsourcing labour to low-wage countries, or due to a financial/economic crach, or due to bad management?
4 people who fought in a war and came home with mental issues?
5 people who were victim of natural or man-induced catastrophes?

1. Depends on the circumstances. If you're permanently disabled and no longer useful at any skill whatsoever, that's one thing. If you break your leg and will miss a month of standing behind the Taco Bell counter, you can always sell yourself to a union to get benefits covering that.
2. The family's burden to pay, not mine. How often do you know beforehand anyway these days? That roughly translates to things you are directly bringing upon yourself.
3. Tough crap, that's called capitalism.
4. You already get disability benefits and care.
5. That's called insurance.

1. I meant permenantly disabled.
2. The family's burden to pay for? Any idea about the costs to raise, educate, and sustain life of people with a severe physical or mental handicap?
Families who don't have a wealthy income, how should these people manage?
Shouldn't a modern society which considers itself successfull and civilised not be willing to contribute a bit to making the life of the handicaped a bit more worthfull? If we're back to the "everyone for himself"-mentality, well, there's much hope left for the planet and the human race. Not that I am an idealist, but I consider myself no egoïst either.

The Nazis' solution towards the handicaped was to deport them to concentration camps for extermination. Don't understand me wrong; I'm not saying you're a Nazi or think like them, I only want to bring in remind the most radical inhumane solution.

3. IMO, pure Capitalism without a social system is as bad for a society as Communism in North-Korea.

4. Probably, I'm not very familiar on how that is organised in the US. I had doubts how efficient/sufficient it would be.

5. I wonder if the people in the Ukraine were insured against the Tsjernobyl-catastrophy. Or the fishermen against the BP oil-disaster on your shores.


The list contained - as I said - just a few examples. I don't have the time or willingness to discuss every possible case. It's not the forum's purpose and I don't want the server to crash.

Wow, now I'm a Nazi for not wanting to let others take more of my money away. Wow.

I wasn't referring to you, but to the dear "Dr. House".
For his remark about sending the US' homeless "on a one-way-ticket to Europe". Even if meant sarcastically, such expressions remind me of the Deportation-practices used by the Nazis.

 

[Dreamfighter]

What do you call someone who demands to receive something he did not work to earn?

A politician or a banker. ;D

Well, I can't speak from experience, but I'm pretty sure the big majority of these "lazies" would prefer to have a job and a decent income, instead of living of wellfare.

A very large number of the chronically welfare-ridden disagree. Look at Britain. IIRC, there are several *million* who have been on the dole for more than a decade. How to explain that?

Of most of Western-Europe's social systems, the Bristish one's comes closest to the US system.

Ah. So your solution to the homeless issue would be to exterminate them

Not my solution, but some of your expressions made me feel it MIGHT be YOUR solution. If that WOULD be the case, an avatar of "Dr. Mengele" would be more appropriate.