The problem for greece was that the euro was to strong. Same goes for Ireland, portugal , and spain. When countries with weak economies and large debt have strong currencies, the countries can't pay off any debts or spend anymore money because they don't have the cash to pay it off because they aren't allowed to print cash because people like you think 3-4% inflation would be the end of the world. The US doll or needs 3-4% inflation, which would lower the value of our debt. I would be the first to admit the US welfare system is horrible but abolishing it isn't the answer, we need welfare reform. Notice the US still spends less on welfare than Western European countries, we need reform that allows us to more effectively spend larger sums of money on welfare. Reform that includes increased taxes on the rich. You mentioned the countries in Europe that are going through Economic hardship, but they don't have the most extensive welfare programs, you can find a model of sucsess in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark. The Scandinavian model has higher taxes, more effective welfare programs, and independence from the eurozone.

denis apparently lives with Mom and Dad and doesn't have to buy food, gas, clothing, etc while his wages stay stagnant or decrease Most likely, he is listening to some elitest, overpaid dumb-ass college professor who told him inflation is good. Moron. Most of us live in Reality-ville, and think that the lack of inflation is not the problem...is it GOVERNMENT OVERSPENDING, you dumbass.

No, the problem for Greece was they lied about their deficits to get into the monetary union in order to reap the benefits of lower interest rates and then they squandered the opportunity they have to fix their unsustainable Welfare State programs when they had the chance.
Sweden has a lower standard of living than one of America's poorest states, Mississippi.
The facts just don't support your contentions Denis, but people can believe anything they want.

Inflation at 3 to 4 percent is good. Runaway inflation would be bad, that's a given. And if you think government spending is a problem what are you planning on cutting?
What is your solution to getting out of a deficit?

REPEAT: denis apparently lives at home with Mommy and Daddy, and therefore can not grasp the concept that 3-4% inflation in an economy of GROWING unemployment and LOWER wages is a BAD THING. Why the hell does the government need the same or more money when workers are making less and spending more.

Moron.

The Deficiet is NOT a tax problem. It is NOT an inflation problem. It is a FUCKING SPENDING PROBLEM you dumbass! The solution to getting out of the deficit is STOP SPENDING FUCKING MONEY YOU DON'T HAVE!!!! It's pretty fucking easy to figure out!

denis....when you go to the Mcdonalds, do you order more food than you have money to pay for? Pretty simple concept, isn't it? don't buy what you don't have money to pay for. Why the fuck shouldn't the same idea that MOST people apply to their own lives apply to the Government?

I have yet to see a liberal answer that one with any common sense. they agree they have to be responsible in their own lives....and then try to explain why government can be completely irresponsible and then try to tell you how this is a good thing. Sigh.....morons.

You can't cut anything, right Denis.
The economy would fall apart tomorrow if you cut any government program that is run with borrowed money, right Denis.
When someone posts something as inane as "what are you planning on cutting" preceded by "if government spending is a problem" is obviously out of touch with at the least basic finance and at the most reality.

The fact that this has nothing to do with the statistics I posted substantiates my diagnose as an individual already experiencing hysteria.

What the statistics say is that the Welfare State has grown since 1950- from 50-75% growth and that the main dependents on this Welfare State-Seniors-is exploding in the next fifteen years.

The Welfare State is already insolvent.
There is no question that government spending is a problem, as the statistics clearly demonstrate.
The only question is what spending is completely ended to allow other spending to continue.
Of course the Welfare States proponents hysteria grows with this realization.

A quote from a site I visit...

Any five-year old child knows that if you put ten marbles into a tin can, you can only take ten marbles back out. No amount of wishful thinking, dreaming, or praying, will yield that eleventh marble from inside that can. That eleventh marble does not exist. It never did, and it never will. All discussions about the eleventh marble are the product of imagination. The eleventh marble is a fantasy.

Private central bankers issuing the public currency as interest-bearing loans operate on the belief that they can put ten marbles (dollars) into a tin can (the world) and magically get 11 marbles back out. Thus, we may conclude that the the bankers are dumber than five-year old children! But unlike five-year old children, the bankers will take your home, your business, and your nation when they don't get that eleventh marble! The spoiled child may cry and throw a tantrum, but that will be the end of their upset. The spoiled banker, however, in his or her arrogant rage that they cannot have the eleventh marble their imagination says must still be in that tin can, may start a war before they will admit that eleventh marble was never really there.

Economies are like tin cans. Before you can take a marble out, you must have put a marble in. Nobody can give you a marble that does not exist, yet this simple reality is lost to the priests of that fantastic religion called banking in that unholiest of temples called the IMF. Their religious doctrine seems to be that there must always be an eleventh marble inside the tin can, and that the tin can unfairly withholds that eleventh marble, indeed cheats them of their right to the eleventh marble, purely out of spite. That faith in the existence of the eleventh marble, unseen and improvable, is the article of faith the religion of banking rests on. It is far easier to burn the heretics than to question the dogma.

Today we see the bankers, having already retrieved their ten marbles from the tin can, flogging the world for that missing eleventh marble. Greece does not have that eleventh marble, so they turn to Germany and ask, "Do you have an eleventh marble", and Germany replies, "Sorry, but the bankers already took the ten marbles they put in our tin can, and we are searching for an eleventh marble ourselves. Try the Americans." The Americans, of course, have only just surrendered the last of their ten marbles back to the bankers and are looking under seat cushions for that missing eleventh marble nobody seems able to find.

But the eleventh marble will never be found. After all that mayhem brought down on the tin can there still will be no eleventh marble. It does not exist. It never did, and it never will.

2010 HDI Report inequality adjusted ( meaning it takes inequalities in life expectancy, income, and education into account )
1. Norway
3. Sweden
10. Denmark
12. United States
@Krellin how do you plan on getting rid of a deficit without raising taxes? if we cut spending only without acctually creating revenue we will never pay anything back.

Do I guess Denis can't comment effectively about the insolvency and bankruptcy of the welfare state and attempts to hijack the thread to something he calls "inequality."

I can seen a mental inequality where Denis, as predicted, resorts to hysteria in the face of the facts in the origin post of the thread.

Thank you for being a piece of empirical evidence to prove the point Denis.

denis - if you wee HALF as smart as you pretend you were, you would go bck and look at the revenue history of the United States. You will see that in times of LOW taxes, you actually generate more government revenue becaus you have more business activity. When Reagan lowered the top teir rate from 70% to 28%, revenue's just about DOUBLED. Hell...if raising taxes is such a good thing, then put 'em at 100% right?

Oh...what? That's stupid? Nobody would work if all their taxes went to the government? OK....90%. what? Still no good? So...you DO have at least a small, tiny amount of intelleignece, right? It's called the Laffer Curve. Look it up.

anyway....FUCK TAXES....STOP SPENDING SO MUCH MONEY. That is how you get rid of deficit's yo mental midget. Besides which, I think you are a typical liberal fool that doesn't even understand what he is saying. I think your real question is, "How do you get rid of the DEBT?" Not the deficit. Two ENTIRELY different things. You get rid of the DEBT by growing the economy --- NOT devaluing the dollar, you idiot.

Third world dictatorships devalue their currency to get out of debt. That is what liberals like denis which the US to become....

@tettletons chew
"Inequality adjusted" just means that the original HDI (Human Development Index) report didn't account for inequalities between, Sweden, Norway, and Denmark, education system, average income, and life expectancy , and those of other countries on the list. On the unadjusted list it looked like this
1. Norway ( adjusted 1)
4. United States (adjusted 12)
9. Sweden (adjusted 3)
19. Denmark (adjusted 10)
If you were to say that the factors that are factored into the adjusted report have nothing to do with quality of life you have other problems than worrying about people's quality of life. I wasn't hijacking any thread you brought it up "Sweden has a lower standard of living than one of Americas poorest states, Mississippi"
The facts are simply on my side.
@krellin
Ronald Reagan raised taxes during his 8 years in office, he tripled the deficit, he isn't the god of right wing fiscal policy that he is made out to be. The government gets money from taxes, that is how it pays back any debts that is how it pays government workers salaries. If you want to get rid of the governments debt the government has to get money, and that is through taxes... You seem to think that when people say America is in debt they mean something other than the government. And the deficit is debt, which by the way was created by George W Bush not Obama or the democrats. It's only when the right can blame left for debt that they start whining about deficits and spending.

@ denis - You're fighting a losing battle here. You are of course absolutely correct, but Tettleton and krellin will never concede that you have a point however minor, and will never accept any statistic that you put forward. They are ideologues, blinded to reality by their pro-market convictions. I tried arguing with them too, until very recently. Just ignore them and let them jerk each other off and eventually I think Tettleton's Chew will stop posting these threads.

The Swedish Research Institute of Trade conducted a study that found said that African Americans, who have the lowest standard of living in the United States (a absolute tragedy I might add) have a higher standard of living than the average Swede.
The study also found that if Sweden joined the United States Sweden would be the poorest state in the United States, below even Mississippi.
The study was made before the high taxes that Swedes have to pay for their welfare state benefits as well. The median income of Mississippi was 50% high than the median income in Sweden.
Why in the world do Levis 501 Jeans cost $130 in Sweden.

The Soviet Union had 100% taxation (no private property) and it failed to sustain its welfare state.

The problem of course isn't taxation, and this is what drives Welfare State supporters into hysterics.

@Mafia --- I DEFY you to spend more than you make in your OWN PERSONAL life and NOT run a deficit. You, sir, are a moron. Apparently you went to the School of Denis.

@ tettletons chew
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index
Heres a link to the study I posted about it was in 2010. If you would please provide a link and a year for your study I would be happy to look at it but you seem to have implied that it was done before Sweden underwent large socialist reform. " the study was made before the high taxes that swedes have to pay for their welfare benefits as well."
My parents were born and raised in the soviet union. They had an income, and they had their own apartments, their own cars, their own country side houses, their own tv's, their own jobs for which they got paid, their own college education ( which was free). tettletons chew you are an idiot you don't have facts you have drivel. The median income in Mississippi is 15,853 (2000), in Sweden it is 21,193 (2004)...

krellin I'm not getting sucked into another stupid argument with you. If the best point you can possibly make here in this debate is if EXPENDITURES > INCOME and INCOME - EXPENDITURES = ASSETS, then ASSETS < 0, and that is the sum total of your argument, then it is not worth my time. It would not be worth my time even if I had nothing but time, and nothing else to do with it. It would be more worthwhile for me to sit here staring at a blank white wall for hours on end, that is how much contempt I have for you and your intellect and your debating ability.

OMG, another fool who cites Wikipedia.

Like I said Denis, The Swedish Institute of Trade conducted the study I'm referring too.
Citing wikipedia is like bringing a wet noodle to a gunfight.

http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2010_EN_Table3_reprint.pdf
There you go, you know Wikipedia has a references section you can find out where they get statistics. Give me a link? a year?

Denis, I know you want to ignore "standard of living" which is widely defined and a long-used category for something called "inequality adjusted."

Can you define inequality adjusted? All I can find is this vague jibberish
"a measure of the level of human development of people in a society that accounts for inequality" on the HDR site you referenced.

Now if you want a definition of "Standards of Living" that is a widely defined measure.
The standard of living includes factors such as income, quality and availability of employment, class disparity, poverty rate, quality and affordability of housing, hours of work required to purchase necessities, gross domestic product, inflation rate, number of vacation days per year, affordable (or free) access to quality healthcare, quality and availability of education, life expectancy, incidence of disease, cost of goods and services, infrastructure, national economic growth, economic and political stability, political and religious freedom, environmental quality, climate and safety.

Now why would the vague statistic you hang your entire argument on "inequality adjusted" that was developed in 1990 by the corrupt United Nations, you know the group that had Gadaffi on the Human Rights Council.

I guess when you are hysterical about the insolvency of the Western Welfare State that is the kind of lunacy you resort too.

I found the article which you seem to be referring to but it is irrelevant
http://mises.org/daily/955
Because it factors in retail purchasing power and private consumption which in the us goes to things like healthcare and education, which in Sweden are covered by the public sector.

http://www.hui.se/web/HUI_Working_Papers.aspx

Retail purchasing power and private consumption are irrelevant.
I wonder how many people buying food, clothes, gas, electronics, etc. etc. agree with your astounding stupidity Denis.

Nothing like an total idiot exposing himself.
Thanks for being you Denis.

HDI is an independent source from the UN. I'm not hanging on to an argument, my argument is that there are two reports one " inequality adjusted" ( including factors such as life expectancy, quality and availability of education, and average income which you just stated as being basic indicators of human development) and one not adjusted. On the adjusted list Norway (1) Sweden (3) and Denmark (10) rank higher than the US (12), and Norway is first on both lists regardless and Sweden is 9th and Denmark is 19th. So as you said in your last post the adjusted list is the better list because it adjusts for factors you had stated.