Conservatism is reason to be happy and free... "life is great."
Liberalism is an excuse to whine and moan... "life is unjust."

Well, that's how I look at it, anyway.

Here's a quote that I saw on Sharkansky's blog and have always remembered, since:

"Take comfort in this thought: life is an ordeal for [liberals]." (onecent on April 13, 2004, http://www.usefulwork.com/shark/archives/001824.html)

liberal: open to new ideas and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

That's the definition I was taught in school. Growing up in a farming community, I have seen (lived) more "grass roots" than most liberals will ever know. The population was mostly Democrats, and voted that way. Not now. When I go home for a visit they say the party doesn't stand for the values it once did. They feel betrayed.

The new "liberal" is an abomination to the old definition. They, not unlike Michael Moore, believe in freedom of speech only when it applies to them. Will they listen to others? Hell no. Only their ideas matter to them. To broaden your mind, you have to listen to opposing views. (make friends with people who have different ideas, they will either help you see things in a new light, or concrete and validate your opinions)

I have many conservative views (but I'm not a republican), and by definition I am more liberal than any "liberal" I know. At least I will listen to your opinon, and actually consider it's merit.

Wanna make a liberal angry? Work hard, be happy, and take responsibility for the decisions you make in your life!

Unlike Matt, I started out as a religious conservative. Then I "evolved" into a libertarian (almost atheist, but not quite).

As I age, however, I find that I am becoming more conservative again, not just in matters of national defense, crime and economics, but on social matters as well.

Issues of family, spirituality and community are becoming more and more important to me. And they are making me into a more "religious" and "social" conservative than I have been.

Nonetheless, I am comfortable in describing myself as -- to borrow Safire's words -- a "lib-con" or "libertarian-conservative."

Because I am what some people construe to be "a person of color," I am often asked by the so-called liberals "Aren't you against racism? If so, how can you not support Democrats?"

First of all, I do not equate affirmative-action with anti-racism (if anything the reverse). More than that, I see all kinds of inequities in the world. I do not think that some deserve a special status over others.

There is racism in the world, surely. But there are also discriminations based on height, looks (ever notice how tall, handsome people get things more easily? What's next, affirmative-action for short, ugly people?), economic status, sex, ethnic origin (as opposed to race -- see today's New York Times piece about the row between "American" blacks and black immigrants from Africa and the West Indies) and so on and so forth.

In other worlds, the world is not fair nor perfect. But I absolutely refuse to buy the idea that policies enforced by government can alter such mindset or "unfairness" in the world. If anything, they make them worse!

We all have to struggle against obstacles and barriers in the world. Some people have more, some have less. That is simply the nature of the life. The only "equality" we have is that on the whole, we are all remarkably ordinary creatures. It is in our individual desire and effort to exceed our boundaries that make us extraordinary.

What the government must do is to ensure that we are all entitled to the same political liberty. One man, one vote and all that (which is not to say equal influence -- that is something else). That is it.

I often hear people say that America's greatest strength is its diversity. What nonsense! Russia, China, India and other large nations all have diverse ethnic populations. Are they equally great?

Our greatest strenght is, instead, liberty. Liberty allows for choice. In turn, choice allows competition (and vice versa in a auto-catalytic fashion) of ideas, products, lifestyles and so forth. That is what makes diversity possible. Diversity is, simply, a product of liberty.

When I came to the United States, the first place where I went to school was New Hampshire. Its motto will forever remain with me as the overriding principle of American life: live free or die.

"Live free or die," is a motto with a certain theatrical appeal, I admit. But I still think Robert Nozick's now famous quip comes closer to capturing the core of American conservatism: No one has a moral right to forbid capitalist acts between consenting adults. Hard to put that on a license plate, however.

With all due respect to Mr. Rekdal, "Live free or die" is, for me in any case, not theatrical at all.

The world is full of constraints and boundaries. For me, it is all about preserving my capacity for independent action in the face of such limits.

I choose, therefore I am. The moment I am incapable of making a choice, I would welcome sweet, sweet death.

While most of my friends would likely call me a conservative (I take no umbrage at the tag), it's really so simple.

I favor small government with large helpings of defense spending. The former respects my freedoms and the latter provides security to protect my freedoms.

I dislike the tendency of the right and left to exercise control over behavior through the power of the State. Although, I must admit the Left is the more guilty of the two. Bike helmet laws and mandatory seat-belts turn police officers into hectoring nannies and divert their attention from real criminal acts. Real criminals just love this.

Drug laws have to be rethought. Lets at least decriminalize marijana or make it's balant and public use subject to fines similar to public intoxication.

Capitalism rocks. Lets have more NAFTA's. I favor more trade. I even favor one-sided free trade with all comers. Let's get on the side of consumers. The United States has been the most open nation in the world in spite of silly laws over "dumping". Hey Brazil, Japan, if your are so stupid you think it's in your self interest to lose money producing products for US Consumers, I want more.

Who has the most open economy in the world, who is the king of patents, who has the most productive workforce, who has the highest per capita GDP? Times up, it's the USA. You know that nation suffering from the burden of all of these products "dumped" on our markets. We don't make a lot of "things" anymore. So what, I'll take high value manufacturing and services any day. It's the route to high paying occupations and wealth building.

I want lower marginal tax rates. The equation is simple. You get less of something with high tax rates, you get more of something with low tax rates. This is not rocket science. It works with consumer goods and it works with income tax revenues.

I want a lower capital gains tax and more stockholders. It's not just fat cats that have the right to be rich. Let's get everybody into the pool. When we create more millionaires, it just means we have a system that rewards people that provides more stuff people really really want. If we can get more shareholders who want to distribute corporate profits rather than money via income taxes, we will all be better off.

Social spending that rewards destructive behavior has always puzzled me. The more we spend, the more we get. Doesn't common sense tell you substancial majorities of the people exchanging bad behavior for compensation will stop if the checks bounce?

Finally, I really really like my country. I'm proud of it's ability to admit mistakes and take great risks on behalf of the rest of the world.

Does this make me a conservative? Probably under todays truth in labeling laws. I just think it's commom sense.

When did I become "conservative"? It started in college when I took an economics class. It's all about incentives and behavior. It just seems "conservatives" play in the real world that recognizes how people behave rather than a world in which we deny how they behave. I didn't know it at the time and wasn't quite sure of it until many years later. But it certainly was my first step.

Gary

I agree with so much of what you write that it is almost a cavil to raise this question. But does it really puzzle you why "we" create social spending that encourages bad behavior?

There is a good deal of economic theory that explains socially wasteful spending as a consequence of "rent seeking" by interest groups and government agencies that benefit from it. If you want to eliminate a social problem, in other words, that last thing you should recommend is the creation of a government program to deal with it.

Much more puzzling to me is the development and transmission of ideologies, which color all of our perceptions (conservatives included), and remain very stable over time (as, for example, in Seattle). No theory I am aware of, economic or otherwise, satisfactorily explains this.

That's quite a mouthful Gary... and while I agree with most of it... NAFTA? No thanks. The North American Free Trade Agreement was designed to "level the playing field" between Canada, the U.S., and Mexico. Not to bring their standard of living all the way up to ours, but to equal out all three. (Bringing mainstream America down while the others come up) Yes we are a nation of consumers, and it's good for other nations that we are. (they aren't losing money providing goods for us) But producers we should be, as well. Else my home county would likely not have been killed (literally) by 12 of 14 factories moving to Mexico... thanks to Clinton and NAFTA. Unfortunately, not every American is capable (mentally) of becoming a millionaire... some are destined by their genes to blue collar labor, we should provide the dream for them too.

Decriminalize marijuana? Please! That's just what I want, more pot-heads driving cars than we already have. Ok, I think there is a better way than risking more lives by legalizing another mind altering substance. Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute.

Other than that, run for office... you've got some good ideas.

Their is no level playing field and there will never be one. People exchange goods and services freely leveraging their respective competitive advantage. Differences exist in the availabilty of capital, an educated labor force, access to raw materials and transportation costs. Some cultural attitudes affect work ethics. Regulation of commerce and taxation policies vary from nation to nation and state to state.

I'm sorry if anybody really believes NAFTA or any other trade treaty exists to "level the playing field". I want to remove the trade distorting subsidies. Since they usually the involve taxpayer giving money to favored producers or government policies to keep the price of goods and services higher than they need to be.

It's tough to live in a capitalist society and I'm sorry for the disruption in your home county. But our country makes many other opportunities for these individuals to succeed in other endeavors.

My Grandfather ran a small country store in what is now Newcastle many years ago. He couldn't compete with the Safeways and Albertsons and closed up shop. Should we have stopped that? Should we have forced consumers to pay him higher prices just so he could remain open and never change? I don't think so.

Like NAFTA or not, all three countries saw increased levels of trade and employment after it's passage. I will not deny that disruptions occur in a dynamic economy, but our collective gains far exceeded our loses.

rross, that you know dumping really doesn't occur shows you understand the silliness of those laws.

I think I can show you how the make millionaires out out blue collar workers. Just let them place their social security contributions into real investment vehicles and retain these assets. Increase the 401(k) limits and forgo taxes on withdrawals. End estate taxes. Tax capital gains at zero and watch the value of the equities market rise. It just happend in 2003 when the capital gains tax was lowered to 15%.

Then, they will have real wealth to fund retirement and assets to pass on to their children. We just have to take advantage of the proven policy tools at our disposal. Compound interest is soooooo cool.

Tom

I'm not really puzzled about the behavior of rent seekers. I'm more saddened we voters keep letting it happen in the face of overwelming evidence of the fraud of social spending.

I'm an optimist guys. It's getting better every day. Cheers.

A long-winded post for Gary, (sorry folks)

I don't believe the playing field will ever be leveled. That is simply how NAFTA was sold to us. The proponents of NAFTA promised it would create hundreds of thousands of new high-wage U.S. jobs, raise living standards in the U.S., Mexico and Canada, improve environmental conditions and transform Mexico from a poor developing country into a booming new market for U.S. exports. NAFTA was an experiment - never before had a merger of three nations with such radically different levels of development been attempted. In fact, calling NAFTA a “trade” agreement is misleading, NAFTA is really an investment agreement. Its core provisions grant foreign investors a remarkable set of new rights and privileges that promote relocation abroad of factories and jobs and the privatization and deregulation of essential services, such as water, energy and health care. Is it good for us on a National level? That question was hard to answer... but many will argue it isn't good on a local level, with a fair amount of proof. Ten years later, (JAN 1, 2004) the time for conjecture and promises was over: the data is in and it clearly shows the damage NAFTA has wrought for millions of people in the U.S., Mexico and Canada. Yes our country provided opportunities for those displaced workers in my hometown. Most had to sell property that had been in their family for 4 or more generations, and move to find employment. The products formerly made in that county have not come back at a reduced rate... just a higher profit margin for the company, with the same price for consumers. (I understand how that affects shareholders and the ecomony through taxes on the corporations, I also understand how it affected those families) It would be difficult for you to convince a man of our "collective gains" (that I'd like you to clearly define) when he is no longer able to feed his family.

My condolences to your Grandfather. As Wal-marts and other large chains make passage into rural America, I've seen many a small business owner fall to the wayside for the same reasons. It's called "progress," and sometimes it hurts. No, I don't think we should stop progress. Nor do I believe in government bail-outs for a section of business owners affected. (like the "paid-in-kind" program for farmers.) Dumping laws and subsidies cost us billions in tax dollars. Those dollars could be used to fund advances in industry, that create more of the high value manufacturing and service jobs you spoke of in your first post.

As for making blue-collar millionaires, go talk to a few blue collar workers about investments... although I believe your social security theory would work, not everyone is smart enough to make it work for them. It's intelligence and knowledge, not opportunity, that may be the barrier for many. If we can teach everyone about compound interest, it (your theory) just might have a shot. Put it in your platform, and I'll vote for you.

"North American free trade with Mexico and Canada was a huge economic success...........Since NAFTA, total trade with Canada has increased nearly five-fold, with an almost three-fold increase with Mexico. And while export-import activity with our neighbors soared, over 40 million new jobs were created at home."

Larry Kudlow - National Review Online

http://www.nationalreview.com/kudlow/kudlow052002.asp

Policies should be crafted on the basis of their cummulative effects. I think NAFTA is a stunning success - Enormous new trade flows, 40 million net new jobs over a period that included the NAFTA treaty. NAFTA wasn't a merger, it extended property rights and made access to capital far easier. Canada, Mexico and the good old USA are still independent nations. That's a more apt description of the EU. All the EU is doing is exporting the French malise to Eastern Europe.

With free trade and a dynamic economy opportunities abound. We will have failures but many many more successes.

As for the price of goods, you must credit Wal-Mart with forever changing the retail environment with it's low price focus. Over the last several years, our shopping has drifted away from the Albertson's and department stores to Wal-Mart and Costco. Their pricing is low and their quality is superb.

What system other than the free market with big dollops of free trade would you advocate?

"The North American Free Trade Agreement was designed to 'level the playing field' between Canada, the U.S., and Mexico. Not to bring their standard of living all the way up to ours, but to equal out all three."

NAFTA was designed to reduce restrictions in the movement of capital. I salute any attempt to reduce distortions in free movements of capital and labor. The question is, is the other half of distortion-reduction, i.e. free movement of labor, in the cards?

"Else my home county would likely not have been killed (literally) by 12 of 14 factories moving to Mexico... thanks to Clinton and NAFTA."

I am no fan of Clinton, but NAFTA is one of two things he did do correctly (the other is welfare reform) -- largely by following the lead of the Republican legislators. That is his claim to "centrism."

"Unfortunately, not every American is capable (mentally) of becoming a millionaire... some are destined by their genes to blue collar labor, we should provide the dream for them too."

Sounds like -- and it is, in fact -- a justification for socialism and nanny state. Some may never become "millionaires" because of lack of abilities and bad circumstances. Who says being a millionaire was guaranteed? Remember, we have a right to the pursuit of happiness (not that millions equal happiness). There is no social guarantee of happiness nor millionaire status. We are all free to pursue. That is it.

"Decriminalize marijuana? Please! That's just what I want, more pot-heads driving cars than we already have. Ok, I think there is a better way than risking more lives by legalizing another mind altering substance. Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute."

Aside from alcohol (which I imbibe in very small quantities) and tobacco (a few cigars when I was younger), I have never utilized any mind-altering substance (okay, I was given anesthetic for one surgery). Nonetheless, I find the danger of "pot heads driving" argument utterly illogical.

The same argument can be used to ban just about everything (including some of my favorite things like firearms).

A person using a mind-altering substance may stay home safe and sound, a threat to no one or he may choose to drive and harm someone. Well, prosecute him for driving under the influence and harming someone, not for using the substance. Why prosecute another for using it and staying home?

Having stated that, there is no "freedom to use drugs" in the Constitution. Remember the 10th Amendment, whatever is not given to the federal government goes to the States and the People.

Though I may think it unsound and ineffective, if a majority of voters in a given state decide using certain substances should be illegal, so be it.

Thank you James, for what again is, illuminating commentary. While I agree that the effect on our economy is noticeable, (as in parethesis in my last post) it's the "down-home" real-world results that I am speaking of.

Where are the 40 million jobs of which you speak? And can we add to that equation (or actually subtract from it) the millions of jobs that moved out of the country? Yes these new high-earnings positions exist, for a growing number of college grads. NAFTA's effect on the types of jobs available to the 75% of Americans without a college degree have helped stagnate wage levels and destroyed the economic security of millions of Americans. Many workers who have lost high-wage, benefits paying jobs have been forced to take work in service industries with a 23-77 percent wage loss and no benefits. Should they adapt and retrain? Yes. Tell that to a white male, age 45, who needs to go back to school for a new "NAFTA" created job... but has to feed his family while doing it, and doesn't "qualify" for any aid. Is it a result of our pricing our labor out of the market, maybe... but the marketable level of human resources changed at the stroke of a pen with NAFTA.

I am mildly offended (though not greatly so, as your comment is based on my choice of words) at your saying "Sounds like -- and it is, in fact -- a justification for socialism and nanny state". So, I feel the need to clarify. I advocate less government, not more. I do not think millionaire status is guaranteed (or attainable) for mainstream America. The dream I refer to, is the American dream. Providing that dream is only giving people a vehicle to a good life. ("good" must be defined by the individual) So it's opportunities of which I speak, not guarantees. Is that a better choice of words?

I do not find it illogical to leave marijuana illegal, for just the reasons I stated. Having watched the effects of long term use of weed on acqauntances of mine, I'd rather not make it more available than it is. Legalizing it would lead to widespread abuse in my opinion. I believe that the dangers far outweigh any benefits. Let's vote on it, majority rules! :) I'll go with that. How could the same argument be used to ban firearms James? Sorry, I'm not getting you on that one, forgive my ignorance.

"Though I may think it unsound and ineffective, if a majority of voters in a given state decide using certain substances should be illegal, so be it." Are you an advocate of the States' rights to rule themselves?

(and Gary, I have some comments on the quality of wal-mart goods... [having worked for a distrinution center there] but they are too long for this thread. Feel free to email me if you want to continue)

Gary,

Have you read Kudlow's book, "American Abundance: The New Economic and Moral Prosperity," Published in 1998? In it you will find exactly what I am saying about effects on mainstream America.

"sacrificing the livelyhoods of some for the prosperity of many"

Ludlow says there are 40 million new jobs per NAFTA in NRO... he doesn't quote a source, nor does he subtract the jobs that have moved out as a direct result of the same.

No, I haven't read Kudlow's book. I'm a regular reader of his columns on National Review Online.

Kudlow always uses public data when discussing the economy. The 40 million jobs are the net growth in the overall number of American jobs for the post NAFTA period. During that same period our economy created something like 300+ million jobs and destroyed (300-40) million jobs. And yes, this includes those jobs that moved overseas.

Kudlow is very much a supporter of NAFTA, free trade, lower marginal taxes and fewer regulations. Trade-offs exist. I embrace NAFTA (and I think you know that Larry does as well) because the benefits far outweigh the costs.

Nobody denies their are winners and losers in the free market. But that same free market can produce far more winners than losers.

Again, I ask you, what do you want to do? Ours is an opportunity society, seize it.

What we seem to have here, Gary, is a violent agreement. Thank you for stating the full effect of new jobs versus lost jobs in the economy. You seem to be stating that NAFTA is great on a corporate, professional, and capital gains level; I agree. But the losses on a personal, middle income, blue collar level were, and still are, staggering.

While our trade has increased with both Mexico and Canada, our trade DEFICITS with those countries have increased as well.
[US Census Bureau, Foriegn Trade Statistics, "Trade balance by Country" http://www.census.gov/foriegn-trade/balance/index.html Sep 11,2003] Even Greenspan, a proponent of free-trade, (and yes, I value free trade) calls trade deficits an "unsustainable" drag on our economic growth. What would happen if you only count the deposits in you checkbook and don't subtract the withdrawals? That's what the "public data" you are referring to does.

Kudlow is an extremely intelligent man with a good eye on the global economy. Yes I know Larry embraces NAFTA. While on the national scale I say you make good points... it's the local impact that Larry, and others, tend to ignore.

What would I have us do? That's a loaded question. I think that to compete we have to make more products and/or services that other countries wish to import. That is up to the free market to enable. While labor is cheaper over the border, it won't happen. (until our blue-collar standard of living is commensurate with theirs) Do I want a change from the capitalist society to socialism and goverment control? No. I just want people to recognize the damage NAFTA has done to individuals while helping corporations. We may soon see the elimination of a middle class, leaving two extremes. (ok, that may be over the top, the result should be much less dramatic)

Government projections suggest that outside of computer related positions (which are among the 3 million high tech and professional jobs that are forecast to be "outsourced" in the next ten years by corporate cost-cutting), the greatest U.S. job growth is expected to be in occupations such as, food preparation and service, customer service representatives (getting "outsourced" as we speak), security guards, and personal and home care aids. (Some great choices for the guy who was two years from retirement and his factory moved to Mexico.) [U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Occupational and employment projections to 2010" Table 4]

Corporations mean jobs, as long as they stay here. (another good reason to be happy with conservatives) Giving corporations the incentive to leave is not a good thing. Sieze opportunity, yes! Keep opportunity here, absolutely! Can we have it both ways?

I apologize to other bloggers as this thread has taken on a different tone. (and I have aided immensly) We were supposed to be talking about conservatives, not debating NAFTA. Again my apologies. My opinions of NAFTA's effects on the populace at large aside, I'm voting for Dubya this year. :)

Post Script:

Thank you, James and Gary, for your openess, that affording me the opportunity to look at NAFTA from another perspective. (mary jane is still a bad thing James) ;)

Rob

Robert:

I am not the person who brought up the "40 million jobs" claim. All of us can go back and forth on economic claims, so I would like to point to an article that compares our country to those that do "care about those who can't" through various free market distorting measures (mind you, these are some of the wealthier countries in the world):

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005242

The striking thing about this is the little fact as follows:

"But what about equality? Well, the percentage of Americans living below the poverty line has dropped to 12% from 22% since 1959. In 1999, 25% of American households were considered "low income," meaning they had an annual income of less than $25,000. If Sweden--the very model of a modern welfare state--were judged by the same standard, about 40% of its households would be considered low-income."

In other words, "poor" people in America actually do remarkably well even in comparison to "average" or "middle-class" people in prosperous and, yes, welfare-state countries like Sweden. So much for free market being bad for people on the "bottom."

As for "guns and drugs," I have seen many arguments against civilian ownership of firearms that mimick your argument of "I knew a guy who was destroyed by..." For that matter, I have a very close member of my family who destroyed himself with alcohol abuse. Should alcohol be banned? No, I think making a bad choice that harms another should be censured. In other words, if you do drugs and stay home and sleep, there is no need for penalty. If you do drugs, get on the road and kill someone, who pay for your bad choice.

One principle I like in this context is allowing the people the freedom to make the choice in the first place, and then punish those who make the bad choice to harm others. Leave those who exercise responsible choice alone.

As for State's rights, I am not for it or against it. I am a constitutionalist, and I would like a more honest application of the US Constitution.

By the way, there was a news item about pornography on Fox News just now. The debate was between a "protect the children" conservative and a "it's free speech" ACLU-type. The debate is in wrong framework.

First of all, the First Amendment right of the right to dissent politically and to petition the government has nothing to do with pornography. There is no constitutional argument there. Secondly, when a community may decide to ban certain kinds of display it considers pornography, that is fine -- only I think it is plain silly to bar transaction between those who wish to be paid for showing their bodies and those who wish to see those bodies and pay for them.

Live free or die.

Thanks James. In response to the 40 million jobs statement... my mind was working faster than my slow-typing fingers, and I obviously fused parts of your comments with Gary's. I apologize.

I'm not sure why you decided to bring up the "poor" when I was talking about the effects of NAFTA on the middle class, but hey, that's me. Sure, we can pass economic hot potatoes back and forth all day, citing whichever mouthpiece says what we need backed up. That's why I introduced facts from the Census Bureau, et al. We can even draw from opposing views to support our theories by taking things out of context, i.e. Rush Limbaugh. (there are countless Liberals that do this as well) Need I say, "even the devil can cite scriptures for purpose?" The percentage of people below the poverty level has dropped, yes. The NUMBER of people below the poverty level has risen. (population increase?) We are never going to be without the poor. Yes, our poor are much better off than other, typical nation's. I've witnessed that firsthand.

I'm not suggesting a welfare state, merely pointing to the fact that, while jobs for college grads are on the rise, as NAFTA has moved factories out of the country, lots of the people who had those jobs, (middle aged, without degrees) have found themselves flipping burgers and picking up aluminum cans to feed their families. (not able to re-train for a new job)

Thanks for clarifying the "drugs to guns" thing. But on the far side of that, shouldn't we then just legalize every drug, and punish the abusers?

By saying that you are "a constitutionalist, and I would like a more honest application of the US Constitution." Are you suggesting we revert to common law and let everyone do anything they want until it physically harms another? I would like a more honest application of it as well. I think the problem arises as groups try to "translate" the document to fit their cause.

Ok James...

The article you mentioned, http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005242
when they compare Sweden and America to make the point that Sweden would have 40% of the populace on welfare at the same income ($25,000 u.s.) level were used as "low income"... they are using our dollar as the standard and not the % of income average as the measuring stick. That unbalances the scale, because:
1.00 Swedish krona
is equal to
0.13 U.S. dollar (today, but historically less worth than our dollar)To measure Sweden's incomes in U.S. dollars has biased the results.

Also it says, "The authors [of the study] admit that man doesn't live by GDP alone, and that this measure misses output in the "black" economy, which is significant in Europe's high-tax states. GDP also overlooks "the value of leisure or a good environment" or the way prosperity is spread across a society."

One quote from the article I must agree with and stress is, "But at least all of this is a warning to U.S. politicians who want this country to go down the same welfare-state road to decline."

For the record: I do not wish to stifle free trade or capitalism. But it is very difficult for me to look past the veritable "ghost towns" produced by NAFTA in middle America. I watched it happen, and it was disturbing and gut-wrenching.

Rob:

Even with PPP-adjusted figures, American "poor" would come off exceptionally well to do even by European standards (not to mention those of Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America).

As for the American middle-class, it is simply plain rich by foreign standards.

Good morning James,

Yes, this nation's poor are in much better shape comparitavely. This is the only country I have seen where the poor have personal vehicles to drive to a protest. (Unlike walking up to hundreds of miles in, say, Africa) This is an argument used by people to pour billions of dollars out in foriegn aid. (Some of these programs are benefitial to us, some are not) Let's compare Sweden to Bangladesh... Man! Those Swedes have it good! Their middle class are rich compared to Bangladeshies!

We don't live in Europe, we live here. I cannot possibly disagree with your points, you make incredible sense, as always, James. But can I suggest that we judge our middle class by our own standard of living? We live in a great country, no doubt. I am afraid of us becoming a "nanny state." Here's why:

Sir Alex Fraser Tytler, a Scottish historian and legal mind who died in the early 19th century said, [paraphrased]: that once the public realizes it can vote it's hands into the treasury, a democracy is doomed. This is one of the reasons that I vote for candidates less likely to bend to the pressure of special interests, or increase entitlement programs. The entire passage is very thought provoking, and scares me to death. (but we are a representative republic, not a democracy, right?)

I hear, on many different topics, the argument that "it could be worse." Somewhere, there is a guy that has it as bad as it can be. Boy, do I feel sorry for that guy.

In the end, I relent. You make perfect sense, James and Gary.

James, I am in complete agreement with you. The middle class, even to ME, seem rich !

"While the U.S. Census Bureau has no official definition of the “middle class,” conventionally it has come to represent a large swath of the American populace with incomes between approximately two hundred percent of the federal poverty threshold and those of the nation’s top five percent income earners—roughly $25,000 to $100,000 a year." ...from an institute for public policy

Lorna, without my asking specifically what your household income is, are YOU in this category called middle class?

Richard: No.

If your income is less than the lowest figure, (since you said NO) then why don't you jump on some of the available programs to get a better education... and become middle class. You are obviously not stupid. If you are already educated, then it has been your choice not to seek better employment and become part of the "middle class" that you envy.

Gary said it best in this string: "Ours is an opportunity society, seize it."

Rob:

"This is the only country I have seen where the poor have personal vehicles to drive to a protest." Exactly!

The WSJ piece I linked mentions "air conditioning," and how prevalent it is in the United States even among "poor" households.

It is such a simple thing, but most Americans simply do not realize how rare air conditioning is in foreign households, even among other "wealthy" nations.

Now, it is not paradise and perfection in the United States, but we all have the opportunity (of varying degrees) to "make it" here.

People who think that the society is all "egalitarian" in Europe simply do not understand enormous social, economic, class and political barriers to upper class (or even middle class) that exist there.

I'm not a Democrat, but I'm not a Republican either. I used to be a Republican, but frankly the collection of mealy mouthed, ignorant, four flushing, war mongering, religious fanatics that have taken over the party make me ashamed to admit that I was ever a Republican.