$98 per barrel oil

Jay Honeck wrote in news:1194886120.503835.134330@
57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com:

They started building their welfare system in the late 19th/early 20th
century. At that time they were still comparatively poor as their
economies were mostly agricultural. They got rich after WW2, and used
that money to massively expand their welfare systems. The expansion
stopped with the recessions in the 1990s and 2000s, so did the tax
rises. Their budgets are now at equilibrium, and the economy is going
strong once again.

The Western European welfare economies could only exist because they
lived under the umbrella of America's protection from the Soviet
Union. Not
having to spend money on self-defense is a wonderful thing, but don't
count
on it lasting for too many more "generations" -- cuz we're broke.


Good grief.



Bertie

Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote in
:

Anyway I think I have evidence that it doesn't hold true, at least
not all of the time: Voters have often and repeatedly voted for
parties who advocate welfare cuts.
That supports the assumption. Since the majority of the population is
not (yet, anyway) on welfare, voting for cuts in welfare is voting in
their own self-interest. Thanks for providing me an example.

There's a logical gap somewhere. If you assert the majority are anti-
welfare, then the original assertion that the majority will always
elect the candidates who are pro-welfare can't be true.

No claim was made about welfare in my original post. You injected
welfare into the discussion as a red herring.


I'm speaking in the context of the USA which I believe was the context
of Jay's original post.

I thought it was supposed to be a global rule.

I don't know the intended scope of the rule, but I was applying it
solely to where I live and to where Jay was commenting about in his
original post.


3. That pro-welfare policies will always be implemented without
also rising the taxes
I don't see where this assumption is present,
If spending and taxes rise evenly, there's no unbalanced budget, so
no problem.
There will be as you can only raise taxes so far. There is an upper
limit above which you no longer have a democracy and thus the original
argument holds. Once you become communist or socialist than the
original assertion is complete.

How to become a communist country: The communist party makes a coup
d'etat and/or gets "help" by the army of a neighbouring communist
country. Then everyone (believed to be) anti-communist is shot, put in
jail or forced to emigrate, a new order is etablished without bourgeois
tinkerings such as elections and free speech and things.

Raising taxes doesn't quite do the trick.

As soon as the tax rate is 100% and all money flows to the government
and is then redistributed by the government to the populace, then you no
longer have a democracy and thus the original assertion holds. Call the
government what you want, but it isn't a democracy in any sense of the
word I'm familiar with. At that point the government is in total
control and the people are completely subservient to the government.

Maybe democracy has a different meaning where you live.


Oh no. It's not a given that high taxes kill the economy. Example the
Scandinavian countries: Generous welfare systems, excruciatingly high
taxes (even by European standards), strong economies. Has worked for
generations and shows no sign of caving in.
I don't consider the Scandinavian countries to be bastion of a great
economy, but maybe.... I seldom see them on any list of economic
significance.

They are the richest countries in Europe, I think Norway's GDP per
capita is tops of the world, one or two Arab oil sheikdoms excepted.

I'm also not terribly familiar with their governmental
systems. Are they true democracies?

Yes. FYI all countries in Europe are true democracies, except the
Vatican and a couple of Eastern European countries where the 1990
revolutions semi-failed. (They succeeded in most).

That's good, I hope they last. Why don't we here and read about the
contributions of the Scandinavian countries with respect to technology
advances, aid to other countries, etc.?

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote in news:3R1_i.741$2n4.24321
@news1.epix.net:

Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote in
:

Anyway I think I have evidence that it doesn't hold true, at least
not all of the time: Voters have often and repeatedly voted for
parties who advocate welfare cuts.
That supports the assumption. Since the majority of the population
is
not (yet, anyway) on welfare, voting for cuts in welfare is voting
in
their own self-interest. Thanks for providing me an example.

There's a logical gap somewhere. If you assert the majority are anti-
welfare, then the original assertion that the majority will always
elect the candidates who are pro-welfare can't be true.

No claim was made about welfare in my original post. You injected
welfare into the discussion as a red herring.


I'm speaking in the context of the USA which I believe was the
context
of Jay's original post.

I thought it was supposed to be a global rule.

I don't know the intended scope of the rule, but I was applying it
solely to where I live and to where Jay was commenting about in his
original post.


3. That pro-welfare policies will always be implemented without
also rising the taxes
I don't see where this assumption is present,
If spending and taxes rise evenly, there's no unbalanced budget, so
no problem.
There will be as you can only raise taxes so far. There is an upper
limit above which you no longer have a democracy and thus the
original
argument holds. Once you become communist or socialist than the
original assertion is complete.

How to become a communist country: The communist party makes a coup
d'etat and/or gets "help" by the army of a neighbouring communist
country. Then everyone (believed to be) anti-communist is shot, put
in
jail or forced to emigrate, a new order is etablished without
bourgeois
tinkerings such as elections and free speech and things.

Raising taxes doesn't quite do the trick.

As soon as the tax rate is 100% and all money flows to the government
and is then redistributed by the government to the populace, then you
no
longer have a democracy and thus the original assertion holds. Call
the
government what you want, but it isn't a democracy in any sense of the
word I'm familiar with. At that point the government is in total
control and the people are completely subservient to the government.

Maybe democracy has a different meaning where you live.


Oh no. It's not a given that high taxes kill the economy. Example
the
Scandinavian countries: Generous welfare systems, excruciatingly
high
taxes (even by European standards), strong economies. Has worked
for
generations and shows no sign of caving in.
I don't consider the Scandinavian countries to be bastion of a great
economy, but maybe.... I seldom see them on any list of economic
significance.

They are the richest countries in Europe, I think Norway's GDP per
capita is tops of the world, one or two Arab oil sheikdoms excepted.

I'm also not terribly familiar with their governmental
systems. Are they true democracies?

Yes. FYI all countries in Europe are true democracies, except the
Vatican and a couple of Eastern European countries where the 1990
revolutions semi-failed. (They succeeded in most).

That's good, I hope they last. Why don't we here and read about the
contributions of the Scandinavian countries with respect to technology
advances, aid to other countries, etc.?


What, you don't have a search engine?

Not that it matters since you're not interested in being shown anything.


Bertie

Jay,

The Western European welfare economies could only exist because they
lived under the umbrella of America's protection from the Soviet
Union.


Jeeze, Jay, you really ARE funny.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

The Western European welfare economies could only exist because they
lived under the umbrella of America's protection from the Soviet
Union.

Jeeze, Jay, you really ARE funny.

I wish it *were* funny. Do the math, and see what the US spent on
defense throughout the 1960s, '70s and '80s. Then take a look at what
Europe spent on its own defense.

Or did you think that the money to build your nice welfare state
simply grew on trees?

Sometimes I wish we had just let Europe rot in the 20th century. It's
hard to imagine what the wealth of our country would be today, had
that occurred.

You'd be speaking Russian, but I guess that's a small price to pay,
eh?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:
The Western European welfare economies could only exist because they
lived under the umbrella of America's protection from the Soviet
Union.

Jeeze, Jay, you really ARE funny.

I wish it *were* funny. Do the math, and see what the US spent on
defense throughout the 1960s, '70s and '80s. Then take a look at what
Europe spent on its own defense.

Or did you think that the money to build your nice welfare state
simply grew on trees?

Sometimes I wish we had just let Europe rot in the 20th century. It's
hard to imagine what the wealth of our country would be today, had
that occurred.

You'd be speaking Russian, but I guess that's a small price to pay,
eh?

Jay I fully understand your feelings on this an somewhat agree with you.
BUT, had we not defended Europe in the last half of the 20th century yes
they would have been speaking Russian and we would have had a MUCH larger
and richer USSR to deal with and I doubt that would have been pretty.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Jay Honeck wrote:
The Western European welfare economies could only exist because they
lived under the umbrella of America's protection from the Soviet
Union.

Jeeze, Jay, you really ARE funny.

I wish it *were* funny. Do the math, and see what the US spent on
defense throughout the 1960s, '70s and '80s. Then take a look at what
Europe spent on its own defense.

Or did you think that the money to build your nice welfare state
simply grew on trees?

Sometimes I wish we had just let Europe rot in the 20th century. It's
hard to imagine what the wealth of our country would be today, had
that occurred.

You'd be speaking Russian, but I guess that's a small price to pay,
eh?

Jay I fully understand your feelings on this an somewhat agree with you.
BUT, had we not defended Europe in the last half of the 20th century yes
they would have been speaking Russian and we would have had a MUCH larger
and richer USSR to deal with and I doubt that would have been pretty.
I understand YOUR feeling and agree in part, but the idea that with Europe
in their pocket that the USSR would have been richer is absolutely silly.
MOF, it would have probably collapsed much sooner as they overextended
themselves even with their more limited empire.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...
The Western European welfare economies could only exist because they
lived under the umbrella of America's protection from the Soviet
Union.

Jeeze, Jay, you really ARE funny.

I wish it *were* funny. Do the math, and see what the US spent on
defense throughout the 1960s, '70s and '80s. Then take a look at what
Europe spent on its own defense.

Or did you think that the money to build your nice welfare state
simply grew on trees?

Sometimes I wish we had just let Europe rot in the 20th century. It's
hard to imagine what the wealth of our country would be today, had
that occurred.

You'd be speaking Russian, but I guess that's a small price to pay,
eh?

Their economies are imploding and within a generation they'll have to bend
over and spread their cheeks for the Islamofascists. I'd say they'd scarcely
notice any difference.

Do you have any cite for this? Nothing I can find nor anything I've heard
of before supports this. ( That West Germany paid for US Military )

John

"Wolfgang Schwanke" wrote in message
...
Jay Honeck wrote in news:1194886120.503835.134330@
57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com:

They started building their welfare system in the late 19th/early 20th
century. At that time they were still comparatively poor as their
economies were mostly agricultural. They got rich after WW2, and used
that money to massively expand their welfare systems. The expansion
stopped with the recessions in the 1990s and 2000s, so did the tax
rises. Their budgets are now at equilibrium, and the economy is going
strong once again.

The Western European welfare economies could only exist because they
lived under the umbrella of America's protection from the Soviet
Union.

Bollox. If it were true they'd have collapsed in 1990.

Not having to spend money on self-defense is a wonderful thing,
but don't count on it lasting for too many more "generations"

You may not be aware of this, but the European countries do have their
own military and they pay for it themselves. Did you also know that the
costs of the American military in West Berlin (where I live) was payed
by the West German government?

Regards

--
AFN from USA, BFBS UK OK

http://www.wschwanke.de/ usenet_20031215 (AT) wschwanke (DOT) de

Bollox. If it were true they'd have collapsed in 1990.

Not having to spend money on self-defense is a wonderful thing,
but don't count on it lasting for too many more "generations"

You may not be aware of this, but the European countries do have their
own military and they pay for it themselves. Did you also know that the
costs of the American military in West Berlin (where I live) was payed
by the West German government?

Horse hockey. Take a look at the percentage of GDP that went into
military spending from 1950 - 1999, United States versus Europe. The
US carried Europe through the 20th century (when we weren't beating
the crap out of you), all the way throught the Cold War, and we're now
carrying you into this new, even more dangerous War on Terror.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"