Liberal Social Policies: greatest economic threat to US

Now, I don''t want you to take this personally, but what percent of the world economy comes from the Netherlands?

Hey, no problem with that, I''m always in for a factual discussion. Problem is that I couldn''t find raw economic data on percentages of the world economy. Holland is a pretty big economic factor in Europe though so I really don''t know. You should compare the Netherlands with a US state rather than look at it as a country

Looking at countries with a socialist bent,

More like social democrat, and that party gets only 25% of the votes in this country, over the years a lot of majority governments in Holland have consisted of conservative/christian coalitions. They never bothered to completely strip down the Social Security system though, maybe because of our citizens'' common incline to help the poor and needing.

Has their importance risen or fallen when compared to the rest of the world? Who would you say has had stronger economic growth and more real wealth generation over the last 15 years: the Netherlands or Hong Kong?

Fallen, and Hong Kong probably grew more, the same goes for the US in both cases though AFAIK.

...the same goes for the US in both cases though AFAIK.

As far as you know, the US has fallen or grown more?

I really don''t know, reckoning that the Dutch economy followed the US most of the time I applied logical reasoning. Good chance I''m wrong though, got any data to show?

The US economy, both in real terms and as a percent of the world economy has grown significantly over the last 15 years. I would imagine that the Netherlands economy has grown over that time, but has fallen as percentage of the overall world economy as industrial nations like China and India and free market hotbeds like Singapore and Hong Kong have risen in prominence.

Mkay thats some pretty logical reasoning too.

Free market hotbeds like Singa ''chewing gum? death sentence!'' pore? They aren''t exactly civil liberties hotbeds

Koesj said: ""I reckon your social security policy is pretty f*cked up.""

You''re right. Rich people pay up to a certain amount, it stops at around $87,000.00 of income. This means they pay a maximum of $5500 if they are not self-employed. The policy behind this is it is more than they would ever receive in benefits, so why tax them more? Our Social Security is not supposed to be a welfare Robin Hood program where you take from the rich and give to the poor. It''s supposed to be a ""forced retirement plan"". At the risk of sounding like a liberal, I do resent that rich older people receive social security retirement benefits paid for by poorer people. It''s their ""fun money"". But they vote so there you go.

We are very protective of our social security program and any talk of doing away with it is political suicide. Lest I remind, it was a liberal, Bill Clinton, that in 1993 enacted a tax on social security thus reducing benefits. This sucks because people have already been taxed on this money, but logic does not apply.

The wages that are taxed for medicare are unlimited. Medicare is a Robin Hood type program.

Remember, as Alien was so astute to point out, your countries have much smaller populations than ours and I believe are far more conducive to social programs as you describe than ours would be. It''s a logistical nightmare over here. Plenty of hands reaching out, some deserving, some not so much.

True, too bad politics and electoral mess-ups get in the way of good policy making. Whether ''liberal'' or ''conservative'', most measurements do work when they are carried out in a proper way.