Comments on: Obama's Future for America: Europe?

By: vulcanhammer

vulcanhammer — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 06:55:21 +0000

I don't think that its an issue to adopt (or consider adopting) certain European (or any other region) ideas for our own country. However, why is it always the big, intrusive government plans that people want us to adopt? Why doesn't someone suggest Sweden's establishment of a nationwide school voucher program which is working quite nicely? Why doesn't someone suggest adopting Switzerland's national health care policy which mandates that everyone purchase private health care insurance--if someone can't afford to purchase it, they are granted vouchers (very Milton Friedman)? Why not adopt Canada's housing example and get rid of the interest deduction for home ownership or better yet, get rid of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Getting rid of those things would prevent housing bubbles. Instead, we are getting ready to adopt a Cap and Trade scheme that works horribly in Europe. Why? I'm all for adopting ideas that work and that will not act like an anchor on the rest of the national economy. .-= vulcanhammer´s last blog ..Libertarians Discuss Health Care On National T.V. =-.

By: Harrison

Harrison — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 02:44:46 +0000

The American nuclear umbrella DID keep Europe from falling to the Soviets and the US DID have troops in Europe for those reasons. And it worked. Reagan rammed MX nuclear missiles into Germany and made Europe safer. FACTS. The US DOES spend tons more money on defense as a percentage of our economy than Europe. FACT. Much of this was to fight the Soviets in Europe. FACT. America did benefit from the Marshall Plan but wihtout it Europeans would be speaking Russian. The Europeans didn’t want to be in the same mess but they DID want America to keep them safe from the Soviets. They liked to put down America when convenient for political reasons but they NEEDED us to be there.

Without the strength of the American economy Europe would have few exports and less money. We are one of the very largest importers of European goods… everything from French wine to German cars and without our FREE and STRONG marketplace Europe would whither.

Yes, some Europeans did fight in WWII but there were many Quislings there (including half of France). The people of Europe are not bad but their leaders, overall, were. Europe was too politically and economicially divided to put up any fight in WWII except the Brits but that’s only because they are on an island and got a real leader in the form of Churchill who had been a political failure before the war because he was a hawk and idiots like Chamberlain were running things.

Americans make many fine products such as construction equipment, airplanes, medical supplies, and design things that make the world run like chips and software. American cars in Europe (Opel, Ford, etc) are very good but in the US it is the government-run mentality and high labor costs that stunted their growth. And plenty of people buy American cars, just not in places you lived like Miami.

And when the Asia economy went into the crapper in the 1990s it was the American economy that prevented a worldwide depression from setting in. I think Germany is the only well run country in Europe from an economic perspective. American greed and consumer greed and willingness to go into debt are serious problems that nobody here seeks to address but I’d live here rather than there any day of the week.

By: Harrison

Harrison — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 01:59:02 +0000

I did enjoy the SNCF when it wasn’t on strike. I enjoyed taking the TGV from Paris to London and it was very convenient and the ICE in Germany is very nice, too. People always talk about high speed rail. The thing is, it is driven by many structural differences. In Europe they tax gasoline and diesel very heavily and spend a ton of money on trains. That takes a lot of money away from citizens. Aside from subways, trains are the most expensive form of transit available. Also, the distances are much shorter between cities/countries in Europe than in the US. High speed rail would only make sense between Washington, D.C. and Boston. In fact, Amtrak loses money on almost all of their routes but the NE corridor. Here’s a good economic analysis of high speed rail and its costs:

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=474381&Ntt=high+speed+rail

What I enjoyed most about Europe was its history, not its economics.

And if Obama wants revenue and thinks imported oil is so bad why is he against raising the gas tax? Why..? Because it is political suicide so he has to look for more covert ways to accomplish the same thing.

By: Joe Markowitz

Joe Markowitz — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 01:09:12 +0000

You lived in France; there must be some things about it that you liked better than the United States? (at least the food was probably better) My point being that maybe you don’t have to adopt every single feature of European culture and government and economic systems. But maybe we could try to adopt the things that they do better than we do, without necessarily falling into the traps that they have fallen into. I don’t see why, for example, we couldn’t build high speed trains in the United States the way they have in Europe. And I don’t see why we couldn’t adopt at least some of the features of the health care systems they have in France or Germany that seem to be working better than what we have here. And I also don’t see why we couldn’t consider higher gasoline taxes and possibly a national VAT as a way of solving some of the fiscal and political and environmental problems that we have. I don’t see why we would necessarily have to adopt European-style protections for employees, and other rules that may limit people’s ability to find employment, if we picked up on some of the good ideas the Europeans have. I also don’t think that picking up on good ideas that other countries may have discovered would lead to the dreaded socialism that is always thrown out to scare people whenever someone suggests any kind of public improvement.
.-= Joe Markowitz´s last blog ..What’s Your Plan? =-.

By: Hans

Hans — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 08:55:36 +0000

Sorry, but do I have to take this posting serious?.)
You make some strong statements such as ‘U.S. helped to re-build them after WWII we also used our money to protect them not only from each other but from the Soviets’
I am sure that you didnt fight during the second world war, since the people I met, who really fought, never would say this.
The USA with its Marshall plan helped the European countries by helping itself. Dont tell me that the USA only helped us, it helped itself first.
Second, the European countries never wanted to be in the same mess again and didnt want the USA to ‘protect’ us from ghosts such as the ‘great sovjet empire’. Do you really think that people in the former sovjet block such as Czech R, Poland, Bulgaria, etc. want a system as in the USA? You are wrong.
The facts the writer of the WSJ gives about the OESCO are completely wrong. Check http://www.oecd.org/document/57/0,3343,en_2649_37457_43136377_1_1_1_1,00.html
Its obvious that the writers of these articles can not read.
Lastly: an USA which education systems sucks, which banking systems sucks, which health care sucks, which manufacturing sucks (can you explain me why Americans always buy products from Japan, Korea, European countries?) which is indepth for more than 1 trillion € not dollars (also that went down under your ‘world leader’ Bush) how can you defend the USA policy? As the USA is almost bankrupt?
cheers
hans
.-= Hans´s last blog ..Day Opening – July 19 =-.