TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- State of the Union
Pages (7): « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 »

quote:

Originally posted by WittyHandle The only reason the WW2 generation was so tough was because they had to be. People don't do that by choice. It would take much more than the economic situation we're in now to get America back to that point.

And I agree. Having said that, I still feel as though this nation is entirely far too lazy, spoonfed, and butthurt when it gets told the brutal truth/reality than it should be, and that's more of what I feel as though he was getting at.

It's too bad that the White House has been emblematic of that of late. There's a 59-41 advantage in the Senate still - rhetoric is nice, but flex a little muscle, Mr. President.

+1

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN did you really feel obama was capable of making such a change to the political establishment in the US? Ive said it before and ill say it now- nobody is capable of being significantly progressive as a united states president. That horse bolted so long ago its not funny. As a president, you are either right-wing or extreme right-wing. Its disappointing, but id be levelling my disappointment at the established political system (even moreso now since the SC�s recent decision) rather than in the direction of any particular individual. Move somewhere nicer, with gun restrictions, public healthcare, public electoral funds, compulsory voting. Oh, and drop bears

Obama is right wing?

Really?



Really?

quote:

Originally posted by Nostalgic Obama is right wing? Really? Really?

not obama personally perhaps, but that's not what we're talking about. his presidency (and all US presidencies) is right-wing. that's just the state of american politics.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby Fucking Republicans are so god damn self centered. These are good ideas and they just sit there opposing them on vindictive attitudes and stubbornness than any real material reason.

Or maybe on the fact that we're spending ourselves into oblivion.

Perhaps that is true, but that is by no means a new development with this administration. I think pkc is completey right (heh) - sure does smell like status quo around here and the only thing you can wash that out with is cat piss.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Or maybe on the fact that we're spending ourselves into oblivion.

I think he addressed that.

quote:

Originally posted by WittyHandle I think he addressed that.

the laughter that came from the chamber when he mentioned a (paltry) spending freeze was entertaining. Flashback to the campaign in 2008: Obama blasts McCain's suggestion of a spending freeze as "draconian".

Blah blah blah, these were times blah blah blah America prevailed blah blah again we are tested blah blah blah I took over the economy on the verge of blah blah so we stole trillions blah blah blah..

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss the laughter that came from the chamber when he mentioned a (paltry) spending freeze was entertaining. Flashback to the campaign in 2008: Obama blasts McCain's suggestion of a spending freeze as "draconian".

Listen, we are fucked either way, the US is going to come out of the crisis it is in a much much much weaker state than it has been in the last 150 years. The question is how far down we go.

Spending into oblivion is bad, but we are already fucked there, a few trillion more here and there is NOT going to make it much more drastically worse in terms of our national debt and budget deficit. Like I said, we are already fucked. At this point rational people like Obama and his advisors are going "how do we control the damage." No one wants to come out and say "we are fucked" but it is the truth and what we are essentially doing right now is triage and determining how many limbs we need to amputate to save the place. What Obama and crew are trying to do is that when we do amputate we only have to cut off one leg, not both.

In business terms maybe this will make more sense Kevin: "You have to spend money to make money." That goes for the feds to.

Of course if the economy does recover and we have a booming economy we'd still be fucked by the Republican parties economic policies because we can't tax any of that wealth. Nope, no money for the government ever.

Like I said, we are fucked. Its just how much can we salvage when we do hit rock bottom.

Sorry for being totally depressing but if you have a better way of describing the path that we are on then by all means explain.

I wasn't talking about the spending freeze.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby In business terms maybe this will make more sense Kevin: "You have to spend money to make money." That goes for the feds to.

But businesses would fail miserably (as they should) if they just constantly borrowed and spent, but didn't show a profit or make the required changes in efficiency to be able to operate. Gov't doesn't have to show a profit, and they sure as shit don't run efficiently; they just suck more from the private sector.

quote:

Of course if the economy does recover and we have a booming economy we'd still be fucked by the Republican parties economic policies because we can't tax any of that wealth. Nope, no money for the government ever.

Dude... what? Republican economic policies? We have the world's highest corporat tax rate now. Taxes alone from Exxon (a record $30 billion last year) to the government were equal to 50% of all taxes received (or, from 65 million individual filers). Almost half of the population doesn't even pay income taxes... all the social programs and entitlements are funded by those with money; 5% of earners are paying about 63% of all taxes.

quote:

Like I said, we are fucked. Its just how much can we salvage when we do hit rock bottom. Sorry for being totally depressing but if you have a better way of describing the path that we are on then by all means explain.

I agree... we are fucked and it's depressing. A better way at acheiving an economic turnaround, in a nut shell, should obviously include financial incentives and tax reductions plus our government shrinking, not growing.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss But businesses would fail miserably (as they should) if they just constantly borrowed and spent, but didn't show a profit or make the required changes in efficiency to be able to operate. Gov't doesn't have to show a profit, and they sure as shit don't run efficiently; they just suck more from the private sector.

Look at governments that implement social policy like the Scandinavian countries. All of them, including Finland, have a budget surpluses and they have very large governments and an incredibly high standard of living. Governments don't suck, just ours.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Dude... what? Republican economic policies? We have the world's highest corporat tax rate now. Taxes alone from Exxon (a record $30 billion last year) to the government were equal to 50% of all taxes received (or, from 65 million individual filers). Almost half of the population doesn't even pay income taxes... all the social programs and entitlements are funded by those with money; 5% of earners are paying about 63% of all taxes.

But thats too much in the eyes of your party, right?

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss A better way at acheiving an economic turnaround, in a nut shell, should obviously include financial incentives and tax reductions plus our government shrinking, not growing.

how do you plan to reduce the deficit with even more tax cuts?

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby But thats too much in the eyes of your party, right?

I was thinking just that haha.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN how to you plan to reduce the deficit with even more tax cuts?

Isn't it obvious? If we cut taxes we'll make more money. Duh.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby Look at governments that implement social policy like the Scandinavian countries. All of them, including Finland, have a budget surpluses and they have very large governments and an incredibly high standard of living. Governments don't suck, just ours.

Finland doesn't have a population of 300 million people and a huge military sucking up the government's resources.

quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Stalin Finland doesn't have a population of 300 million people and a huge military sucking up the government's resources.

That is true. The US does have certain military obligations under treaty and by understandings with other countries. That is a roll that we took after WW2 and it has for the most part served us well in gaining influence and stature on the world stage.

Unfortunately it is not something we can actively maintain for much longer. European nations share their defense burden through NATO and EU treaties and in turn are able to spend considerably less of their GDP on their military forces.

The US is stuck between a rock and a hard place. China has a large military and its growing more modern and capable every year. Russia is flexing its muscles again.

The US still has to compete on the global stage but we do not have the domestic resources to cover the burden and its hard to garner international support for military operations now because of the failed diplomatic policies of the Bush administration (the world likes when the US does stuff for them, just now when they don't ask).

Once again, as I said we are fucked. We are being crushed under the weight of our international obligations, our past policy decisions in support of different nations, and our general view that the world sees of us. There is no easy way out of this besides wrapping up our obligations in Iraq and Afghanistan, stepping out of the international policy circle (that means no longer putting ourselves in positions where our military can be relied on) and drastically scaling back the cost of our military. The size doesn't really have to come down, but the logistical nightmare that is our international basing and deployments has to be scaled back, at least to within the north-western hemisphere (as in within the US territories). This puts us in a significantly weaker position, and since we do not have the multitude of nations to support ourselves like the EU we will again be drastically under cut on the world stage.

It is a very sad state of affairs.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby Look at governments that implement social policy like the Scandinavian countries. All of them, including Finland, have a budget surpluses and they have very large governments and an incredibly high standard of living. Governments don't suck, just ours. But thats too much in the eyes of your party, right?

Yeah... and what? You think they pay $2.40/gallon of gas there? The cost of living in Stockholm or Oslo or Helsinki is a lot higher than most places here. Why do you think that we can get all you dream of without it costing more to the individual citizen?

Well, yes I do think it's too much... and it has nothing to do with the eyes of my party. Most people (and companies) should pay their fair share (and I stress the word 'fair'); instead, an increasingly larger percentage of the overall tax burden gets saddled on the achievers. I'm sorry but it's the acheivers and risk takers who provide the climate for almost 80% of employment. Economics 101: the more you raise the tax burden, the more you depress the activity that's being taxed. If you make life more difficult for them, you'll see what you're seeing now: no incentive to invest, laying off workers, picking up stakes and moving operations to other countries, and less revenue going to government by both individuals and companies.

quote:

pkcRAISTLIN: how to you plan to reduce the deficit with even more tax cuts?

I'm no economist, but it's a stone cold fact that tax cuts spur economic activity, which lead to more money going to the government. Bush's tax cuts sent more tax dollars to the federal government than EVER. Unfortunately, much of that was grossly mismanaged.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Yeah... and what? You think they pay $2.40/gallon of gas there? The cost of living in Stockholm or Oslo or Helsinki is a lot higher than most places here. Why do you think that we can get all you dream of without it costing more to the individual citizen?

Yet they have a higher standard of living. Who care what it costs compared to us. They can afford it and they are happy.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Well, yes I do think it's too much... and it has nothing to do with the eyes of my party. Most people (and companies) should pay their fair share (and I stress the word 'fair'); instead, an increasingly larger percentage of the overall tax burden gets saddled on the achievers. I'm sorry but it's the acheivers and risk takers who provide the climate for almost 80% of employment. Economics 101: the more you raise the tax burden, the more you depress the activity that's being taxed. If you make life more difficult for them, you'll see what you're seeing now: no incentive to invest, laying off workers, picking up stakes and moving operations to other countries, and less revenue going to government by both individuals and companies.

Thats a problem with the heritage of this country. Most of its population base are the rejects of Europe from the 14th to 19th century. We have those that are achievers, but most of them are crooks on some level. The countries ideals have always been a somewhat all for one attitude. There is no incentive to help one another because we feel that we are some how above everyone else on a human level. Which is simply not true. The bum on the street and the CEO in the glass tower above him are both people and they deserve the same fundamental rights of health and freedom. Thats an obligation people should have towards one another and one that is totally lost on people in the United States. Even the most free-market countries in Europe have these ideals in a much, much stronger way than here in the US.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss I'm no economist, but it's a stone cold fact that tax cuts spur economic activity, which lead to more money going to the government. Bush's tax cuts sent more tax dollars to the federal government than EVER. Unfortunately, much of that was grossly mismanaged.

The government will still owe money, you keep cutting taxes and you will have a government that will no longer be able to exist. Republican tax policy is an endorsement of anarchy.

the only reason he was elected is cause he looks good and talks well. He's a pure orator and nothing else.

it's fucking annoying, and pkc, he's not that right wing, the really anoying thing is that he just does NOTHING.

at least bush made things worse... that gives some kind of perspective... obama is just pure lies.

i'm not saying nobel prizes were ever true signifiers of merit, but obama winning one has made them entirely valueless.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby Yet they have a higher standard of living. Who care what it costs compared to us. They can afford it and they are happy.

A higher standard of living than here? If so, the differences are neglegible; we aren't comparing Uganda and Dubai here. Have you spent time living there to compare? I would be willing to bet that they'd appreciate the same standard of living for the comparitive US costs.

quote:

Thats a problem with the heritage of this country. Most of its population base are the rejects of Europe from the 14th to 19th century. We have those that are achievers, but most of them are crooks on some level. The countries ideals have always been a somewhat all for one attitude. There is no incentive to help one another because we feel that we are some how above everyone else on a human level. Which is simply not true. The bum on the street and the CEO in the glass tower above him are both people and they deserve the same fundamental rights of health and freedom. Thats an obligation people should have towards one another and one that is totally lost on people in the United States. Even the most free-market countries in Europe have these ideals in a much, much stronger way than here in the US.

Enough generations have passed now that the "rejects" of the 14th to 19th century don't have any bearing on business today. Where are you getting that from? I would actually argue the opposite- 1st and 2nd generation people who came here are harder workers than the American's who have 4+ generations living here. The majority of business owners and people here who achieve are NOT "crooks on some level"... Jesus man this isn't Russia. I've met some scandelous people in my 8 years of private sector business, but for the most part the people I've crossed paths with are pretty solid. I'm not saying this as an insult, but you obviously have no real experience in the business world because to say that the ethics of business is totally lost on people in the U.S. is crazy. Reading about AIG executives or Bernie Madoff, etc., speaks for a rather small percentage of business owners and operators. You need to spend some time in the real world man. Just sayin'

quote:

The government will still owe money, you keep cutting taxes and you will have a government that will no longer be able to exist. Republican tax policy is an endorsement of anarchy.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby That is true. The US does have certain military obligations under treaty and by understandings with other countries. That is a roll that we took after WW2 and it has for the most part served us well in gaining influence and stature on the world stage. Unfortunately it is not something we can actively maintain for much longer. European nations share their defense burden through NATO and EU treaties and in turn are able to spend considerably less of their GDP on their military forces. The US is stuck between a rock and a hard place. China has a large military and its growing more modern and capable every year. Russia is flexing its muscles again. The US still has to compete on the global stage but we do not have the domestic resources to cover the burden and its hard to garner international support for military operations now because of the failed diplomatic policies of the Bush administration (the world likes when the US does stuff for them, just now when they don't ask). Once again, as I said we are fucked. We are being crushed under the weight of our international obligations, our past policy decisions in support of different nations, and our general view that the world sees of us. There is no easy way out of this besides wrapping up our obligations in Iraq and Afghanistan, stepping out of the international policy circle (that means no longer putting ourselves in positions where our military can be relied on) and drastically scaling back the cost of our military. The size doesn't really have to come down, but the logistical nightmare that is our international basing and deployments has to be scaled back, at least to within the north-western hemisphere (as in within the US territories). This puts us in a significantly weaker position, and since we do not have the multitude of nations to support ourselves like the EU we will again be drastically under cut on the world stage. It is a very sad state of affairs.

a lot of this is complete bullshit, or at least just propoganda. you're making the US sound like an underdog: the poor guys who don't have a treaty like the EU? aww

and it's a roll they took after WWII simply because of paranoia and complete lies. The whole cold war was the US spreading their empirialist regime... I don't mean this in a kind of socialist way, but it literally was. The Russians were never a threat to the US on ANY level at all, yet the US fought them on every ground imaginable, the russians lost everything during the war.
the fact that the US was the only state to come out off WWII richer than when it went in says enough, let alone all the people, money, infastructure and intelligence the russians didn't have, yet US claimed they did... it was one of the now standard irrational and terrorist moves that the US pulled on their own people... Look at all the shit that the citizens of the US had to deal with because of the fabricated threat that the russians claimed to have posed...

also: how is the US not involved in NATO? they've used them as a puppet to justify their invasions on a number of occasions..
It is entirely the US' choice not to be a part of things similar to the EU. You think the arrogant, and all powerful Titan would EVER limit their power by getting involved in a transnational corporation?? LOL
look at how they treat the UN... yeah they're very open to other states...

also, don't scapegoat bush. He did a terrible job, but the international (and especially military) policy of the last handful of presidents has been ridiculous and led to a number of unecessarily and legally questionable (or downright illegal) wars. once again, this is the fault of the US, not just one individual, or figurehead and doesn't make the state and nation as a whole somehow guilt-free...

the idea that they had to compete was created by them, and also is a joke since they have been the only ones with any significant power since the end of WWII... saying there was any competition to speak of in real threat terms is silly.

The us SHOULD cut back. It's the bloated arrogance that has controlled the world since WWII, and caused numerous unecessary and terrible consequences.
i think it's pretty ridiculous you make the US sound like the underdog, like they're fighting the good fight for the whole world, and are supremely democratic, and representative of the world... ridiculous.
it's this mentality which will finally catch up to them in the next 50 years when we will see the fall of the great empire... i can already hear the 'barbarians' banging on the gates...

too much talk, no reform. the world's in flux, the US is stagnant and horribly idealistic.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The First 364 Days 23 Hours
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.