We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Thursday, December 16. 2010
Legal Insurrection reminded me of this:
These really are different views of the world and of the human being.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Could it be that those perceptions are based on the amount of state control, regulation and interference upon people's lives?
In other words, the less the state interferes the more prosperous an individual can become.
That's part of it.
Many of those odd-balls who wanted control of their lives left for America. The rest seem to be living in a 21st century feudal system. I suppose it's relaxing to not make any decisions - just wander through life doing as your told and waiting for a reward.
I would not feel relaxed at all to have gov making the decisions that affect my life....in fact, I am not pleased at the direction America is headed in this regard.
For most of us, there's no way out even if we want to.
Our taxes are so high (both individual and corporate) that most people have barely enough income to scrape by, not enough left to save up the monumental amounts many countries demand you bring with you to emigrate there.
Before taxes I make about a third LESS than a US person doing the same job I do, yet I cost my employer twice as much.
After taxes I make about 2 thirds less.
Combine that with a cost of living which is 100% higher than in comparable areas of the US, and you can see how Europeans don't have a lot of money in their savings accounts (and if they do have more than a smittering, it's taxed, and the interest on it taxed as income).
And no, we don't see any of that money, ever.
In part it goes to the hordes of professional unemployed, in part to the government bureaucracies (which are far larger in relation to the population than they are in the US), in large part to "foreign aid" and other lost causes such as subsidies for "art" and "environmental groups".
That's the legacy from 60 years of socialist inspired rule, which the current generations of voters had little or nothing to do with to install and would overall (except for the professional unemployed, artists, greenies, and "assylum seekers" of course) love to get rid of but which have so entrenched themselves they're all but impossible to dislodge (if you thought the Washington elite were entrenched, think again).
For the most part, ordinary Euros are not interested in taking primary responsibility for their "success", especially in any financial sense. They really are quite satisfied with a system that has aristocracy, guilds, and peasants provided the guilds and peasants are reasonably well kept, not worked enough to feel the effects of work, and given generous holidays and vacation time so they can enjoy their festivals and indulge their hobbies.
Security is all they really care about in financial terms. They will take some responsibility for, and pride in, the success or their work if it is some skill or intellectual type of employment - within limits - but they don't require that be tied to financial success. Financially, security = success in the Euro calculus.
financial security == success because there's no hope of ever attaining much more, and most people never attain even that...
When Obama talks about "taxing the rich" and Republicans complain he wants to tax people with incomes "as low as $250.000" and that that's not rich, we are amazed.
An income of $250.000 over here (even in the richest EU countries) is 7 times (roughly) median income.
And our taxes are so high, that even that lower median income earner here pays more taxes after deductions than the highest income bracket in the US before deductions.
For 500 years, people who were self-reliant, adventurous, ambitious and freedom-loving abandoned Europe for the New World. For almost all that time the move was very dangerous. Some historians think that the death rate among indentured servants crossing the Atlantic was the same as Africans in slave ships. Even when my grandparents came over in 1911 there were hazards (Titanic).
The appalling loses during WW! might also have altered the European gene pool. One imagines that the first out of the trenches and shell holes suffered higher kill rates. Certainly, by the time we showed up, European troops were not very aggressive, and they looked on amazed at battles like Belleau Wood.
The radically different attitudes expressed by Americans and Europeans almost certainly has a genetic component, as any alert parent will attest. So, there has been an assortment of peoples along genetic lines, and Americans and Europeans are different races.
The Democrats will have to use violence to impose socialism on Americans. Americans will not merely submit as did the Europeans.
"The Democrats will have to use violence to impose socialism on Americans. Americans will not merely submit as did the Europeans."
I hope you are correct because reciprocal violence is much deserved for the traitors who would visit it upon their fellow Americans in the name of "benefits" for all.
What is it about "uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic" that they don't understand?
Answer: We have heretofore not given them reason to fear us!
Kevin and Bob Sykes ... I think it is worth noting that the real difficulties in the United States began when the word "entitlements" began to replace the word "benefits" in the minds of busybody Liberals. The two words are not analogous. "Benefits" are [or used to be] offered by a well-run organization which had its financial ducks in a row and was in good shape, if said organization wished to reward loyal employees/constituents for their hard work and loyalty. It was assumed that if the corporation fell upon hard times, and had to tighten its belt, so to speak, the benefits might have to be diminished until rosier financial times returned.
"Entitlements," the word with which our politicians replaced "benefits", are a whole 'nother thing. At least they are as presently defined by the Government. They are supposed to "fall like the gentle rain from Heaven" no matter how desperate our country's or corporation's financial straits. And if they are not always there, the populace becomes furious. And rebels loudly and violently. Look at the student riots in Britain right now.
All of which proves once again how important an understanding of semantics is to an understanding of politics and power.
Let us reason together. How about if all the Europeans who think that success is due to individual effort come to America, and all the Americans who think that success is due to outside factors move to Europe? Everyone will be happier, for a while.
I'd say, Europeans have actually followed some social studies.
Social and financial background has a huge influence on success later on, everywhere.
Of course, everyone can make it, but what are the odds for individuals from different social classes?
Hill-Billy girl from Alabama versus son of a lawyer from NY.
Come on, guys, what are the odds?
The funny (or sad) thing is, that the Europeans do actually, when you look at the data, achieve very little in terms of equal chances, despite all their sophisticated social systems.
What I find very interesting is that America is a largely Christian nation. People believe in god, practice their believe.
Then why are they so unwilling to share some of their money for the common good (= other people), as all those northern European atheists do?
In Germany, Sweden or France, the statement that you are a practicing Christian and go to church every Sunday will raise an eye brow.
Yet their governments care for the poor and less fortunate with health care, free education and subsidies and most of those atheists (the French claim to be catholic; trust me, they are not) agree that this is the right way, even if it means higher taxes for everyone.
Isn't that interesting?