"I am for the Declaration of Independence; he is for the writing of Saul
Alinsky. I am for the Constitution; he is for European socialism" is the current rallying cry of would be Republican Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich. Its a call that's apparently fallen on deaf ears, as he has seemingly just lost Nevada's Republican caucuses, and following the loss of Florida, will surely cause him to stand aside from the race soon. He has to win Texas, or he's finished.
However his claim that 'arch right winger' Mitt Romney is a secret 'European Socialist', whilst risible by any European politicians definition of 'Socialist' (Even Pres. Obama would be at best 'centre right' and mostly 'right-wing' by European standards'), is worthy of a small examination.
If 'Europe' is now the dirty word in American politics, then lets look a some of the principle policies that separate us from each other ....
I guess it depends on which 'Europe' the US commentators are looking at .... Oddly, the US system of restricted health provision is far more expensive than the near 'universal' European models. The US pays 17.4% of GDP for a health system that leaves millions with minimal health coverage, while the near universal European health care model costs an average of about 10 - 11% of GDP.
You would think that the Republicans would welcome adopting a health system that covered everyone, and was vastly cheaper to pay for, a 'win win option' for them in the elections, but then who ever said that logic has anything to do with politics?
However his claim that 'arch right winger' Mitt Romney is a secret 'European Socialist', whilst risible by any European politicians definition of 'Socialist' (Even Pres. Obama would be at best 'centre right' and mostly 'right-wing' by European standards'), is worthy of a small examination.
If 'Europe' is now the dirty word in American politics, then lets look a some of the principle policies that separate us from each other ....
 |
| The Things That Divide Them From U.S. |
I guess it depends on which 'Europe' the US commentators are looking at .... Oddly, the US system of restricted health provision is far more expensive than the near 'universal' European models. The US pays 17.4% of GDP for a health system that leaves millions with minimal health coverage, while the near universal European health care model costs an average of about 10 - 11% of GDP.
You would think that the Republicans would welcome adopting a health system that covered everyone, and was vastly cheaper to pay for, a 'win win option' for them in the elections, but then who ever said that logic has anything to do with politics?
