Saturday, April 09, 2011

A "shutdown"?

A "government shutdown"? Really? Sounds crazy. If they did that in Denmark, I think a third of the population would suddenly be out of work! Apparently the Danes love government, it's so huge.


Kent McManigal said...

It's a bluff. They only threaten to "shut down" the harmless (or less harmful, anyway) parts that clueless citizens would be upset to find a "closed" sign on. It's only museums and parks and things like that which get shut down.

The War on (some) Drugs, the TSA, "border security", congress, the Supreme Court, the president, and all the rest of the bad stuff never gets affected at all. Oh, and the welfare checks and government paychecks don't stop coming either. That might cost votes and force people to break the addiction.

Still, it's funny to watch the hand-wringing and finger-pointing among those who debate over whether cyanide or plutonium are the proper poison to administer, yet never question whether they should be poisoning innocent people at all. Oh, sorry, that should be "Republicanism" or "Democratism" rather than "cyanide" or "plutonium"- I got my deadly toxins/government religions mixed up again.

Anna said...

It's funny how you don't seem to appreciate how Denmark works. Thought people from other countries are so jealous about it, a government that is for the people, or at least not clearly dedicated to exploiting it's own people, a country working well, where the distance between the rich and the poor is limited... Hum. It's interesting.

Eolake Stobblehouse said...

"a country working well, where the distance between the rich and the poor is limited."

Sure, that's nice. But it's not limited by the poor having work and the rich being public minded. It's limited by the forceful removal of 70% of the income of the most productive members, to support the idle and pay the interest on old loans to international banks (along with good things too).

And even the normal people pay 50% in tax plus 25% in sales tax. So why they don't feel exploited, I'm not sure.

Anna said...

Interesting point of view :)

To me, it much depends on weather

- the government puts the money in his own pocket, like in many countries

- the government gives its citizens all they need, good quality roads, education, health system, a level of life quality that only the very wealthy ones can afford in some other countries.

I have the feeling it is the second version... Though I for sure don't have too much knowledge.

Bank loans have to be payed, because for now, money is debt. Though nationalizing the banks is a good idea, it may put a country out of the system, with the heavy risks that involves. A country may or may not take that risk. If it can produce enough wealth to pay, and still have its citizens ok... why not.

Anyway, it is your country, you have the right to have your negative opinion. But people from other countries that work way worse may have their laudatory opinion too. :)

Eolake Stobblehouse said...

Sure, most countries are much worse. But I moved to UK, and the standard of living, the health care, etc, is not really that different. And yet the taxes are about 30% less here. That's a ridic difference.