Does the opinion of the London analytical center Legatum Institute outweigh the UN and OECD combined?Yep, we are more than happy having the 10th best standard of living in the world (and falling), trailing 8 european-style socialist countries.
Norway at top of prosperity index - CNN
From your article:
"Norway leads the 2010 list ranking the prosperity of 110 of the world's nations by the London analytical center Legatum Institute.
Norway also topped the 2009 rankings.
Does the opinion of the London analytical center Legatum Institute outweigh the UN and OECD combined?
No but the UN and OECD does not do what the Legatum does. Having higher GDP per captia does not mean the population is more phosphorous.
The US GDP per capita is highly skewed due to massive wealth among few and massive poverty among many... it is called income inequality.
:lol: one would rather hope that they would be less so
really. is that why the poor in America are comparable to the middle class in Europe?
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States...."
Give your conservative tea party pit bulls buddies time and they will be able to lower the living standards of the poor, the deficit deal should help the poor get poorer and the rich get richer
really. is that why the poor in America are comparable to the middle class in Europe?
Tell us--specifically--what subsidies the oil companies get from the government. Thanks in advance!
I hate half-assed analysis in newspapers that is published in order to foster an agenda.
There is a relationship between tax rates and economic growth that is completely ignored by this G&M article.
Let's look at the whole picture and let's begin the comparison in 1981 when Reagan took the US on a different course from the rest of the major Western economies.
In 1981, the GDP per capita of the US was $26,005
In 1981, the GDP per capita of Canada was $23,708
In 1981, the GDP per capita of Germany was $21,243
In 1981, the GDP per capita of France was $20,325
In 1981, the GDP per capita of Italy was $18,973
Let's normalize the numbers with the US set to 100.
In 1981, the GDP per capita of the US was normalized to 100
In 1981, the GDP per capita of Canada was 91.17
In 1981, the GDP per capita of Germany was 81.69
In 1981, the GDP per capita of France was 78.16
In 1981, the GDP per capita of Italy was 72.96
In 2008, the GDP per capita of the US was $43,250 (normalize to 100)
In 2008, the GDP per capita of Canada was $36,123 (83.52)
In 2008, the GDP per capita of Germany was $33,663 (77.83)
In 2008, the GDP per capita of France was $30,624 (70.81)
In 2008, the GDP per capita of Italy was $28,245 (65.31)
So, to put the numbers into perspective.
If the US had instituted Canadian policies and tax rates back in 1981 and followed the same policies and tax rates that Canada implemented in the period between 1981 and 2008, the present US per capita income of $43,250 would be $39,622, an 8.5% reduction in income.
If the US had instituted German policies and tax rates back in 1981 and followed the same policies and tax rates that Germany implemented in the period between 1981 and 2008, the present US per capita income of $43,250 would be $41,209, an 4.75% reduction in income.
If the US had instituted French policies and tax rates back in 1981 and followed the same policies and tax rates that France implemented in the period between 1981 and 2008, the present US per capita income of $43,250 would be $39,182, a 9.4% reduction in income.
If the US had instituted Italian policies and tax rates back in 1981 and followed the same policies and tax rates that Italy implemented in the period between 1981 and 2008, the present US per capita income of $43,250 would be $38,713, a 10.5% reduction in income.
Look at how far each of those countries has slipped over the last generation, especially Canada, which had a 1981 per capita income that was 91.17% of the US level and in 2008 it had slipped to an income level that was only 83.52% of American levels.
TAX RATES AFFECT ECONOMIC GROWTH.
The US and Mexico, back in colonial days had nearly identical GDP per capita figures. We were equally wealthy. Over the ensuing two hundred and fifty years the US simply grew its economy a half percent or so faster than Mexico and look at the result today. We started off with equal levels of wealth and today the
Does the opinion of the London analytical center Legatum Institute outweigh the UN and OECD combined?
Seriously? On what planet are you?
First off all, comparing a country to a continent is arsine at best.
As for the attack it self... prove it. Prove that the middle class of Germany, France, Spain, UK are people that live on 11k US dollars a year.... which is the official poverty threshold of the US.
Irrelevant to the issue -- you stated that the war in Iraq is the biggest part of the increase in the debt.I value our seniors, I don't value the unnecessary optional GOP war in Iraq. The GOP wanted it, now let them pay for it by giving up their precious tax cuts.
As I said we have different priorities. :sun
There is if you want to cash in any of the $2.6T in SSTF IOUs.Congress can increase the FICA cap and lock the funds from general fund use. No need to increase the deficit whatsoever. :sun
Irrelevant to the issue -- you stated that the war in Iraq is the biggest part of the increase in the debt.
This is demonstrably false, as noted.
So... you're either lying, or you do not know any better.
There is if you want to cash in any of the $2.6T in SSTF IOUs.
The money to make good on those IOUs can only come from the general fund or borrowing; either will increase the deficit.
In most of Europe, the poor get the same medical care that the middle class do. In the US, they just die
From 2003-2007, 893,658 major surgical operations were evaluated using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database: lung resection, esophagectomy, colectomy, pancreatectomy, gastrectomy, abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, hip replacement, and coronary artery bypass. Patients were stratified by primary payer status: Medicare (n=491,829), Medicaid (n=40,259), Private Insurance (n=337,535), and Uninsured (n=24,035).
Importantly, after controlling for age, gender, income, geographic region, operation, and 30 comorbid conditions, Medicaid payer status was associated with the longest length of stay and highest total costs. In addition, Medicaid and Uninsured payer status independently conferred the highest adjusted risks of mortality.
nothing but your unsubstantiated claims
As evidenced by his lack of response to my response to this post.Very good, you can cut and paste. This however, doesn't mean you understand, or apply the clause properly.
J-mac
uva study cited by the asa finds that americans with NO INSURANCE actually fare better (shorter stays, lower costs, reduced mortalities) than their unfortunate friends whose primary pay status is medicaid
of course, americans with private insurance enjoyed significantly better results---after controlling for age, gender, geography, race, income and 30 comorbid conditions, that is
ASA: ASA 130th Annual Meeting Abstracts - Primary Payer Status Affects Mortality For Major Surgical Operations
LOL talk about biased statistics, not to mention it does not even reflect what he was talking about......
And the SS portion of entitlements, which make up the largest share, are fully funded by any reasonable projection.
uva is biased---LOL!
obamacare, by the way, includes more than THREE QUARTERS OF A TRILLION dollars in new taxes
Director's Blog » Blog Archive » Additional Information on CBO’s Preliminary Analysis of H.R. 2
is elmendorf biased?
LOL!
you don't know what you're talking about
U.S. funding for future promises lags by trillions - USATODAY.com
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?