Quote Originally Posted by Duth Ealla View Post
Pat, reading Paul Krugman last night and he said that there is a report that 20% of those attending harvard today would not have been admitted 20 years ago.

Health care - great for those who can afford it as you say.
US military also drains a lot of money out of the country no?

Strange linking between personal freedom and the welfare state. Do you believe the receipt of financial support from the state limits a person's choices in life. Considering the drop in income many have experienced in the US over the last few decades then I would be surprised that you would argue that.
US military spending is only about 4% of GNP compared to health care spending of 15%. Military spending contributes in a major way to R & D in advanced electronics and software systems,among other sciences.

In the advanced EU welfare states,governments impose heavy regressive taxes on low income people and at the same time give the lost income back to them again in elaborate,bureaucratic welfare programmes. This is a deliberate left wing strategy to keep people welfare dependant so that they will vote for advocates of more welfare spending.

By contrast,America lets its workers keep a far higher proportion of earnings,which enhances their personal freedom. America has not subsidised low income people as much as it should have with low income housing, financial support for schools and basic health care. However,low tax rates and a plentiful supply of land mean that the cost of living is very low outside the major cities,with very low prices for houses,food and most consumer goods. Walmart has done a lot more for low income Americans than the botched American welfare state in the past 15 years.

The subprime fiasco,which originated from a Clinton administration law that banks must have a quota of mortgages in low income areas,added hugely to the housing supply in such areas. Apparently a majority of the subprimes are being paid,even if many of them are in default.

Not all schools in low income areas are poorly funded by local rates. In some cases,those areas are heavily industrial and generate high levels of rates that allow schools to be as well funded as rich districts.

As for the drop in income,it has been slight and mainly affects low income workers.Of course,it is a very undesirable,socially divisive economic trend. Under Bush,taxes have been lowered too much for high income people who are doing extremely well anyway thanks to globalisation which pays a premium for highly skilled managers and professionals in the internationally competitive import/export sector.