I never meant to say that it's simpler or harder to comprehend, just different. The fundamentals are the same, people vote and the government is formed based on the results of that election, but many don't look beyond that and therefore easily err on thinking that what works here, works there and vice versa. So it doesn't matter whichever system's easier to grasp; one still needs to educate oneself to understand the differences.Moedred said:
Mr. Rourke is bit off the mark here. A non-working person does not make nearly the same as a working one. The income provided by the state is pretty much measured so that one can make the ends meet: no need to be hungry and out in the cold. But there are still people who are better off, and if you wish any kind of taste of luxury beyond filling the basic needs, you pretty much need a job. Sure, there are always those who game the system to get more out of it than that, but it's usually simpler to be working from 9 to 5 than jumping through several extra hoops of bureaucracy, which is required to milk the benefactors. I know I prefer the former.Moedred said:
Obama obviously admires the European welfare state, and his grand vision of America appears to be something similar. Despite knowing myself that it's not so bad, I'm not sure if he's thought it all over while setting that goal. The hurdle he's trying to overcome is not really economical. It's cultural. For Americans, the bottom line appears to matter a great deal. In their minds, anything off their personal income is lost income. Europeans think differently, here we figure that what's off our personal accounts still comes back to us, in one form or another.Moedred said:
I'm not sure if it's a conception that actually holds water if you were to take it through a more rigorous fact check, but it seems to make all the difference that people believe so regardless. And unless Obama can somehow instill that same faith in his fellow countrymen, I agree with Rocko on my assessment - very little is going to change.
