speech bit

[Minionman]

This is your claim. If we increase funds to social programs, by your own estimations, the standard of living goes up.

I didn't actually say social p[roblems, although that might be a quick assumption. When talking about "the economy", I'm also thinking of debt payoff, tax cuts, possibly other programs I can't think of right now. Otherwise, you did get my7 point and we just don't seem to agree on how important increasing living stards increasing is. As for how good social programs are, after my first sentence for a better explaination, that is another argument.

However, America's relative affluence is a counter to the idea that such a phenomenon is at work in that nation.

Maybe right now that's true, but thinking in terms of "the U.S. has so much money, we can spend more" is asking for extra spending that could put a hurt on the economy. Since the military is fine from what I hear right now, I wouldn't be fooling around with it.

Also, the economy will also take work to keep it going strong. Rightn ow the economy is doing good, but say people start working less well over time (say, with worse education) and some important industries loose out in the U.S. If people aren't ready for these changes, there goes a lot of the U.S. economy. Obviously this is an extreme example, and the U.S. is almost sure to still be good for the next several decades, but who really knows how economies will compare 30 or so years from now? Arguing that because the economy is going pretty good now doesn't mean it will always be that way just out of thin air, it actually needs people to keep it happening. I'm saying this because you seem to have a background assumption that the U.S. will always have a good economy just because it does now. If you don't have that in the back of your mind, oops, and don't worry about this paragraph.