and yet you are all for going to war all over the world. We have to PAY for these wars. either through raised taxes or going further in debt to the red chinese. We'd have alot more growth if we had a lot smaller government. end the wlfare/ warfare state!

And France, Germany, and Japan as well as South Korea would have a lot less growth if not for our warmongering.

Governments exist to provide for the protection of life, liberty, and property. It happens that our government was founded by declaring war on the British and many people said the exact same thing about going to war having a disruptive effect on the economy in 1776. That was a war over taxes and tyranny.

If not for the intervention of the French into our foreign affairs in the 1770's, we would not be a country and would not enjoy the freedoms we do. That is the problem with being a free society, namely that we cannot enjoy economic and social freedom and not incur the responsibility to promote freedom wherever people are under tyranny. Just as we did in the 1940's, the 1950's, the 1960's in Europe, Korea, and Vietnam.

We have a long and proud history of defending freedom. While we have at times acted contrary to our ideals, we have spent far more on the Cold War and defending Germany, Korea, and Japan over the last 60 years than the War in Iraq is costing. And ultimately we are reaping the rewards by having these countries as our trading partners and allies. The world is better as are we. Bush's attempts to reform the Middle East will pay the same dividends and is the only way to defeat the ideology of Radical Islam and terror.

Wiat, are you claiming that our growth would be say 6% if not at war? Maybe 7%?

And France and Germany are not at war, yet theirs is 1.5%. So our economic model is so superior that despite being in a massive war in both Iraq and Afghanistan, we are growing at almost three times the pace of France and Germany.

That should say something about Socialism. Am I reading your comments correctly?

You don't compare apples with apples. The US measures the GDP in a differetn way to the rest of the world. You use hedonic prices, which exaggerate economic growth. If the EU apply it, its growth would be .75% higher, meaning around 3.25%--almost same as the US.

And, if you wantr to see underclass, visit the Northeast or the Southeast of Washington DC. Muslims in Europe live much better than blacks in the US.

I am all for free markets and maximizing economic growth. A rising tide lifts all boats. But I am not sure that rapid growth reduces inequality in the distribution of incomes. Higher income people and the rich rake in the money when the economy booms. Nothing wrong with that, but that does not tend to bring about more equality.

I suppose inequality does reduce in one sense. As more people become middle class, people are more equal in the sense that fewer people live in impoverished conditions.

war is the health of the state. You can't be for less government and more war.

And, if you wantr to see underclass, visit the Northeast or the Southeast of Washington DC. Muslims in Europe live much better than blacks in the US.

You mean with their 25% unemployment?

meaning around 3.25%--almost same as the US.

Last I checked our growth consistently has averaged 4% over the last year. Now you are going to tell me that Europe does not measure unemployment or budget deficits as a percentage of GDP the same way either. If Europe measures GDP differently, then surely this does not affect GDP growth rates. No matter how you measure your GDP, you take this this years GDP and Divide by last years and this produces the growth rate. Maybe we measure GDP differently, but wouldn't growth simply be the change in GDP divided by the total GDP?

But I am not sure that rapid growth reduces inequality in the distribution of incomes. Higher income people and the rich rake in the money when the economy booms. Nothing wrong with that, but that does not tend to bring about more equality.

These are the choices we have for attaining class mobility--Force by way of revolution, force by way of taxes and redistribution, economic stagnation, or economic growth. We have seen that forceful redistribution (Communism, Socialism) do not lead to class mobility.

I don't advocate equality. Simply class mobility, which allows for opportunity. Mexico is a prime example of a country that lacks class mobility. The poor remain poor while the rich remain rich. Hence why the poor come here. Opportunity. Class mobility is what is important because it creates a meritocracy, albeit one where the playing field starts favoring the already wealthy.

I cannot say that income redistribution and equality are the goal, but rather opportunities to innovate and advance in the social and economic structure. This is not free and not a right. Rather, it is simply an opportunity.

And to PP, I would argue that blacks have more opportunity to improve their situation in the US than Muslims in France or Germany. I cannot say that blacks in the ghetto do not have difficulties, but jobs, homeownership, and wealth are attainable. In France, most companies will not even interview candidates with Muslim sounding names. It is commonplace, hence the massive unemployment of Muslim youth.