The idea that a capitalist economy can support a socialist welfare state is collapsing before our eyes.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...the-truth.html

why the left-leaning people here have not commented on this.

Originally Posted by villagegolfer

why the left-leaning people here have not commented on this.

I'm not left-leaning, particularly with regard to fiscal policy, but how about China? Their economy is capitalist but their social structure is communist. I guess that qualifies as a "socialist welfare state", doesn't it? They must be doing OK, they're financing both their own country as well as a big chunk of ours.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

I'm not left-leaning, particularly with regard to fiscal policy, but how about China? Their economy is capitalist but their social structure is communist. I guess that qualifies as a "socialist welfare state", doesn't it? They must be doing OK, they're financing both their own country as well as a big chunk of ours.

Compared to us , they are in their infancy. We are a capitalist economy with an increasing socialist welfare state. We borrow 40 dollars for every 100 we spend. How long do you think it will last? You are a big critic of the Tea Party and all they want to do is have more capitalist and less social welfare.
It is hard to believe that you were in banking sometimes.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

I'm not left-leaning, particularly with regard to fiscal policy, but how about China? Their economy is capitalist but their social structure is communist. I guess that qualifies as a "socialist welfare state", doesn't it? They must be doing OK, they're financing both their own country as well as a big chunk of ours.

So you perceive it. You've expressed your admiration for China before. My questions would be..........

Would you want to be a Chinese citizen?

Do you think more Chinese would want to emigrate here, or more U.S. citizens want to emigrate to China?

Originally Posted by villagegolfer

...You are a big critic of the Tea Party and all they want to do is have more capitalist and less social welfare.
It is hard to believe that you were in banking sometimes.

You have to be more careful to read what I've written about the Tea Party and how I feel about the principles they value.

I've described myself as a fiscal conservative and that's what I am. So in that sense, I think the principles that the Tea Party stands for--cut, cap and balance, as an example--are what this country needs to do.

Where I have been critical of the Tea Party is in how they have conducted themselves in trying to achieve those objectives, They were willing to sacrifice both the reputation of the U.S. as well as do irreparable damage to our economy in the interest of "making their point" in the recent debt ceiling negotiations. They negotiated for things that were never going to happen and they knew it. Some of their members actually said that they thought a default by the country would be a good thing in furthering their ideology. The leader of their caucus and a Presidential candidate voted against the deal that was finally agreed upon, apparently preferring default to anything less than the achievement of all their objectives.

I've said it before here, so maybe it bears repeating. While I agree with the principles of the Tea Party, I think they've done serious damage to the interests of fiscal conservatism by the way they conducted themselves in the last couple of months. They were complete amateurs in the conduct of statesmanship. A good agreement is one which is wise, efficient, and which improves the parties' relationship. Wise agreements satisfy the parties' interests and are fair and lasting. The way the Tea Party negotiated accomplished none of that.

The way the Tea Party conducted the recent negotiation resulted in them getting less in the form of spending cuts and deficit reduction than they could have, and they intensified the acidic and polarized relationship with the Democrats and even caused serious rifts within the Republican Party as a whole. They did more harm than good and it will cost the country and fiscal conservatism in the long run.

Actually, it won't even be in the long run. S&P laid out blame squarely on the dysfunction in Washington, paying specific attention to the use of the debt ceiling as a partisan bargaining chip. Connecting the debt ceiling to the deficit reduction negotiations was the stated intent of the Tea Party alone. So what their conduct will cost the U.S. economy has only started with the credit downgrade.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

So you perceive it. You've expressed your admiration for China before. My questions would be..........

Would you want to be a Chinese citizen?

Do you think more Chinese would want to emigrate here, or more U.S. citizens want to emigrate to China?

The start of this thread stated, "The idea that a capitalist economy can support a socialist welfare state is collapsing before our eyes."

How in the world did you get us out in left field asking questions about who would want to live where?

But to answer your question...I'd guess that the poorer Chinese would want to come to the U.S. Their income and standard of living would be improved with our social welfare benefits alone, even if they couldn't find a job.

Highly educated Chinese are heading back home from the U.S. in droves after receiving advanced degrees in math and the sciences from U.S. universities. They're not alone, of course. The vast majority of foreign students are going back home after receiving advanced degrees. Some have said that their standard of living is better back home than it would be if they stayed here and looked for employment.

You don't have to agree, but that is what's happening.

They passed cut cap and balance. S&P said if it was passed into law they would not downgrade our rating.

The house passed it with tea party backing.

Tell me, who was it that wouldn't even let it come to a vote in the Senate?

Where was Obama? Where was his plan? Where was their budget over the last 800+ days?

Still their only plan is to tax and spend like nothing is even going on.

Thank God for the Tea Party.

Originally Posted by dklassen

They passed cut cap and balance. S&P said if it was passed into law they would not downgrade our rating.

The house passed it with tea party backing.

Tell me, who was it that wouldn't even let it come to a vote in the Senate?

Where was Obama? Where was his plan? Where was their budget over the last 800+ days?

Still their only plan is to tax and spend like nothing is even going on.

Thank God for the Tea Party.

All that Obama had to do was tell his cronies in the Senate to pass the bill and none of this stuff would be happening. Dow down over 600 points today.

Thank-you Obama

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

The start of this thread stated, "The idea that a capitalist economy can support a socialist welfare state is collapsing before our eyes."

How in the world did you get us out in left field asking questions about who would want to live where?

But to answer your question...I'd guess that the poorer Chinese would want to come to the U.S. Their income and standard of living would be improved with our social welfare benefits alone, even if they couldn't find a job.

Highly educated Chinese are heading back home from the U.S. in droves after receiving advanced degrees in math and the sciences from U.S. universities. They're not alone, of course. The vast majority of foreign students are going back home after receiving advanced degrees. Some have said that their standard of living is better back home than it would be if they stayed here and looked for employment.

You don't have to agree, but that is what's happening.

All I'm saying is I doubt that any freeborn American would want to live under a system of government as run by the communists of China.

Comparing China and the U.S. is unseemly. If we want to oppress our people and devolve our standard of living, I guess we can emulate China's way of doing things and be successful. Well, at least the ruling classes would be successful.

Originally Posted by dklassen

They passed cut cap and balance. S&P said if it was passed into law they would not downgrade our rating.

The house passed it with tea party backing.

Tell me, who was it that wouldn't even let it come to a vote in the Senate?

Where was Obama? Where was his plan? Where was their budget over the last 800+ days?

Still their only plan is to tax and spend like nothing is even going on.

Thank God for the Tea Party.

The Left is furious about this. The Left and their media allies are trying to pin this downturn on the Tea Party as we speak; lead by the laughable Senator John "F" Kerry. It's the Tea Party fault and S&P's fault and anybody else's fault who doesn't tow the Liberal Progressive Democrat line of more spending and more taxes, and printing more money.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

.......
Where I have been critical of the Tea Party is in how they have conducted themselves in trying to achieve those objectives, They were willing to sacrifice both the reputation of the U.S. as well as do irreparable damage to our economy in the interest of "making their point" in the recent debt ceiling negotiations. They negotiated for things that were never going to happen and they knew it. Some of their members actually said that they thought a default by the country would be a good thing in furthering their ideology. The leader of their caucus and a Presidential candidate voted against the deal that was finally agreed upon, apparently preferring default to anything less than the achievement of all their objectives.

I've said it before here, so maybe it bears repeating. While I agree with the principles of the Tea Party, I think they've done serious damage to the interests of fiscal conservatism by the way they conducted themselves in the last couple of months. .......Connecting the debt ceiling to the deficit reduction negotiations was the stated intent of the Tea Party alone. So what their conduct will cost the U.S. economy has only started with the credit downgrade.

You can blame the Tea Party all you want, but the bottom line is the USA is not doing anything credible to ever repay its debt and THAT was a major factor in the S&P decision.

From the report:

"When comparing the U.S. to sovereigns with 'AAA' long-term ratings that we view as relevant peers--Canada, France, Germany, and the U.K.--we also observe, based on our base case scenarios for each, that the trajectory of the U.S.'s net public debt is diverging from the others. Including the U.S., we estimate that these five sovereigns will have net general government debt to GDP ratios this year ranging from 34% (Canada) to 80% (the U.K.), with the U.S. debt burden at 74%. By 2015, we project that their net public debt to GDP ratios will range between 30% (lowest, Canada) and 83% (highest, France), with the U.S. debt burden at 79%. However, in contrast with the U.S., we project that the net public debt burdens of these other sovereigns will begin to decline, either before or by 2015.

From "Full Report: United States of America Long-Term Rating Lowered To 'AA+' ......"
http://www.standardandpoors.com/home/en/us

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Highly educated Chinese are heading back home from the U.S. in droves after receiving advanced degrees in math and the sciences from U.S. universities. They're not alone, of course. The vast majority of foreign students are going back home after receiving advanced degrees. Some have said that their standard of living is better back home than it would be if they stayed here and looked for employment.

You don't have to agree, but that is what's happening.

If things are so much better "back home" why did they not get "highly educated" back home? Because it is not possible. AND Of course their standard of living is going to be better back home-upon return they are far more highly educated than those that never left, and therefore able to make a better life than they would have otherwise had. They want what we have, so they come here to get it and take it back to make home a better place themselves and hopefully their countrymen.