NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm British so traditionally pro-American, after all we've kept a close alliance and worked in a similar way. But I think we're getting worried. Some Americans have blamed the recent anti-Americism on jealousy, but Americans have had a better standard of living and more power for years, yet only recently has this anti-Americanism risen significantly.

Personally I'm not anti-American(as in being against normal hard working American men and women). I think it's more down to concern, uncertaintity, general direction. You could argue that the USA has always been pro-active when it comes to war(recent wars like 'Nam and Korea), but as other people have pointed out this was assisting in an existing war. Now it seems to that the 'good guys' are insitigating the attacks, even if it's against countries which most people would agree are 'bad apples' is it right to instigate the hostilities?

Ingredients for trouble?

1) Create/find an enemy - terrorists - an enemy that isn't defined by a convential army or country, but an enemy that can be used to give people something to fight against. An enemy that will pretty much always be there to fight against.. perfect?!
2) Increasing nationalism - chest thumping - pride. Everyone should be proud of their country and patriotic, but when does it cross over into dangerous nationalism?
3) Incredibly powerful military machine - does this mean that other nations should start trying to play catch up and militarising their countries? Can we afford to rest on our laurels now that the USA not only has the most powerful military but is prepared to use it in 'first strike' activities?
4) Increased power of extreme(relatively) religous powers. The increasing encrouchement of religion into American politics.
5) Publically stated aims of neo-conservatives, looks like they've realised that resource wars are almost inevitable so are attempting to jump on the boat first. So you can say they're just looking out for American interests, but is it right?

Plenty to think about, comment on there. I know it's the same old same old being brought up again, but what would the average American think if us pesky Europeans starting getting up to our old tricks again (invasions etc.)

Some Americans have blamed the recent anti-Americism on jealousy, but Americans have had a better standard of living and more power for years, yet only recently has this anti-Americanism risen significantly.
Those are only the patriots. There is plenty of domestic anti-Americanism here, though we're in the minority.

Personally I'm not anti-American(as in being against normal hard working American men and women).
No reasonable person would think that way.

You could argue that the USA has always been pro-active when it comes to war(recent wars like 'Nam and Korea), but as other people have pointed out this was assisting in an existing war. Now it seems to that the 'good guys' are insitigating the attacks, even if it's against countries which most people would agree are 'bad apples' is it right to instigate the hostilities?
And by "pro-active" you mean "fucked up", right? Korea and Viet Nam were both extremely idiotic wars that were only a result of erythrophobia.

I know it's the same old same old being brought up again, but what would the average American think if us pesky Europeans starting getting up to our old tricks again (invasions etc.)
Hey, we've already got out own Crusade. Or at least our government seems to think so.

"Should we be worried by the direction the USA is going?"

No. Democracy is self-correcting. Incorrect or ineffective directions will eventually be changed.

And by "pro-active" you mean "fucked up", right? Korea and Viet Nam were both extremely idiotic wars that were only a result of erythrophobia.

Hey, we've already got out own Crusade. Or at least our government seems to think so.

Fear of blushing??? :eek:

You are being overly nieve and disengenuous.

No. Democracy is self-correcting. Incorrect or ineffective directions will eventually be changed.
If only! But my generation does not seem to value things such as free speech much, and it is likely the U.S. will just turn into another authoritarian state with only mock elections. I don't know how long that will take, but all government is doomed to corrpution, as history has proven. Democratic or not.

Fear of blushing??? :eek:
The Greek erythros means "red". Occasionally erythrophobia is interpreted as fear of blushing, but here I am referring to fear of red.

You are being overly nieve and disengenuous.
I'm naïve and disingenuous at the same time? That not a very common combination! Though I must admit, I was exaggerating with the Crusade thing, but it is true that Bush did indeed call it so.

Those are only the patriots. There is plenty of domestic anti-Americanism here, though we're in the minority.


No reasonable person would think that way.


And by "pro-active" you mean "fucked up", right? Korea and Viet Nam were both extremely idiotic wars that were only a result of erythrophobia.


Hey, we've already got out own Crusade. Or at least our government seems to think so.

The Korean war was offically a UN military action! so when you say fucked up, ur blameing the UN right ? And I might add South Korea quite probably would look like North Korea right now if not for that war.. so how idiotic was it ?

democracy is only self correcting as long as the masses arnt uninformed buffoons

We didn't invent islamofascist terrorism as an enemy. We were attacked by islamofascists. The African embassy bombings, the USS Cole bombing, the first attack on the WTC, and 9/11 were acts of war. We are simply fighting back. BTW, I don't consider Iraq part of the war on terror although we are now fighting terrorists in Iraq.

If only! But my generation does not seem to value things such as free speech much, and it is likely the U.S. will just turn into another authoritarian state with only mock elections. I don't know how long that will take, but all government is doomed to corrpution, as history has proven. Democratic or not.

Ive always felt freedom of speech was abused far beyond how it was meant to be used. The simple question is... would you rather live in fear everyday but retain your "natural" rights... or would you rather live in security and sacrifice some of those rights..

4) Increased power of extreme(relatively) religous powers. The increasing encrouchement of religion into American politics.
Can you back this up? I suppose if you're looking at a very short-term timespan you could justify this. Go back 100 years or so, and it becomes different. A while back, Christian creationism was the only theory taught in schools, and things were banned (like sodomy) on a "moral" basis all the time.

democracy is only self correcting as long as the masses arnt uninformed buffoons

Oh! That's right ... I forgot you live here. :rolleyes:

As an American I'm scared...

Because while "granting" freedom abroab the government takes them away domestically. The "Patriot" act allows the FBI to look at what books Americans take out of the library. I'm scared how G.W. increasing thinks God is in the oval office with him. How W gave tax breaks to the rich, then goes on TV and annouces how EVERY american got a tax break. Well I made less and I had to pay more federal taxes so obviously he's lying. We entered a war for an unjust reason. The election in Iraq had 5 million Detriot voters, and an Iraqi national who was born here in Pitsburgh was allowed to vote even though he hasn't been to Iraq in almost 20 years.

If only! But my generation does not seem to value things such as free speech much, and it is likely the U.S. will just turn into another authoritarian state with only mock elections. I don't know how long that will take, but all government is doomed to corrpution, as history has proven. Democratic or not.

Makes a good argument for the contiuned private ownership of guns, doesn't it! :)

1) Create/find an enemy - terrorists - an enemy that isn't defined by a convential army or country, but an enemy that can be used to give people something to fight against. An enemy that will pretty much always be there to fight against.. perfect?!
2) Increasing nationalism - chest thumping - pride. Everyone should be proud of their country and patriotic, but when does it cross over into dangerous nationalism?
3) Incredibly powerful military machine - does this mean that other nations should start trying to play catch up and militarising their countries? Can we afford to rest on our laurels now that the USA not only has the most powerful military but is prepared to use it in 'first strike' activities?
4) Increased power of extreme(relatively) religous powers. The increasing encrouchement of religion into American politics.
5) Publically stated aims of neo-conservatives, looks like they've realised that resource wars are almost inevitable so are attempting to jump on the boat first. So you can say they're just looking out for American interests, but is it right?

1) This was inevitable with the fall of communism. The United States is almost too diverse to hold together without an outside threat. We have not lived in a world without an outside threat for well over a century. Americans just don't know how to live without a "bad guy" to look down on.

2) This has been fostered by those who are trying to prop up the terrorists as our new "bad guys". Terrorists are too amorphous as an external threat to give us cohesion without this upsurge in excessive patriotism.

3) Any country that is capable should always maintain a military presence. It may be that it should be trained as a purely defensive force, even given training in guerilla tactics, but as Iraq has shown, without a well-trained military presence, there is nothing to stop the advance of another country, be it the US or Lichtenstein. The most some countries may be capable of is to give that other country a bloody nose, but even a bully will back off if it gets enough bloody noses.

4) This scares the heck out of us non-religious and reasonably non-wacky religious Americans, too.

5) Of course America has a right to look out for American interests, but to cop a classic comic book line, with great power comes great responsibility. Neocons scare the crap out of paleocons, moderates and liberals.

So, ultimately, my personal view is that the US is going to Hell in a handbasket. It's time to buy a small island and start up a real Mickonia.

"Should we be worried by the direction the USA is going?"

No. Democracy is self-correcting. Incorrect or ineffective directions will eventually be changed.

Your view is hopefully correct, and the correction will come with the minimum amount of damage with any luck(in all senses, lives, economy etc.) Thing is, people have been crying wolf for years over resource shortages, climate problems etc. and yet modern(20-21st century) civilisation seems to be carrying on as normal, but eventually there was a wolf. What can be done? Shouldn't the number #1 world priority to be real long term investment in energy and getting 'off world'. Many people consider this as idealistic nonsense, but I can't help thinking that after acheiving so much the human race could be set back so far by any number of either natural or man-made disasters. Am I a spouting idealistic scaremongering nonsense?

I know that last paragraph seemed to be drifting away from the topic but I can't help thinking that it's related somehow. I'm sure that most if not all warfare has some resource gaining as it's real aim(be it land or even just 'regional power' as a resource), despite the numerous 'cover stories'. So to me this seems to be the real problem running along side with the increased world tensions.

I'm scared how G.W. increasing thinks God is in the oval office with him. How W gave tax breaks to the rich, then goes on TV and annouces how EVERY american got a tax break. Well I made less and I had to pay more federal taxes so obviously he's lying.
The income tax for every earner who pays income taxes was cut, it is a fact.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=211

4) Increased power of extreme(relatively) religous powers. The increasing encrouchement of religion into American politics

Increasing encrouchment of religion into american politics ??? If you really belive that religion hasn't always played a vital and powerful role in politics since the nations inception, you truely dont understand politics at all. Religion has been infused in politics and governmental functions since the time of the founding fathers... what is it the Judges of the Supreme court say every time they take session, what is it that every witness takes an oath on before taking the stand.. what is printed on our national currency. Religion hasn't been magically encrouching on politics... its always been there!

As an American I'm scared...

Because while "granting" freedom abroab the government takes them away domestically. The "Patriot" act allows the FBI to look at what books Americans take out of the library. I'm scared how G.W. increasing thinks God is in the oval office with him. How W gave tax breaks to the rich, then goes on TV and annouces how EVERY american got a tax break. Well I made less and I had to pay more federal taxes so obviously he's lying. We entered a war for an unjust reason. The election in Iraq had 5 million Detriot voters, and an Iraqi national who was born here in Pitsburgh was allowed to vote even though he hasn't been to Iraq in almost 20 years.

You are drawing incorrect conclusions from inaccurate and distorted information, something which seems to be quite common on here.

Your view is hopefully correct, and the correction will come with the minimum amount of damage with any luck(in all senses, lives, economy etc.) Thing is, people have been crying wolf for years over resource shortages, climate problems etc. and yet modern(20-21st century) civilisation seems to be carrying on as normal, but eventually there was a wolf. What can be done? Shouldn't the number #1 world priority to be real long term investment in energy and getting 'off world'. Many people consider this as idealistic nonsense, but I can't help thinking that after acheiving so much the human race could be set back so far by any number of either natural or man-made disasters. Am I a spouting idealistic scaremongering nonsense?

I know that last paragraph seemed to be drifting away from the topic but I can't help thinking that it's related somehow. I'm sure that most if not all warfare has some resource gaining as it's real aim(be it land or even just 'regional power' as a resource), despite the numerous 'cover stories'. So to me this seems to be the real problem running along side with the increased world tensions.

"Shouldn't the number #1 world priority to be real long term investment in energy and getting 'off world'."

I heartily agree, and see positive steps in both areas.

Warfare is as old as humanity and if you think we now have "increased world tensions," you should have been around during the Cold War or during Korea, Vietnam, the Cuban Missile Crisis, or any of a number of other times.

I have often suspected that many of the alarmist tendencies on this Forum are due to the lack of personal perspective of many of the posters here.

The Korean war was offically a UN military action! so when you say fucked up, ur blameing the UN right ? And I might add South Korea quite probably would look like North Korea right now if not for that war.. so how idiotic was it ?
I'm not saying it was idiotic, per se, I am just stating that there really wasn't justification.

We didn't invent islamofascist terrorism as an enemy. We were attacked by islamofascists. The African embassy bombings, the USS Cole bombing, the first attack on the WTC, and 9/11 were acts of war. We are simply fighting back. BTW, I don't consider Iraq part of the war on terror although we are now fighting terrorists in Iraq.
Islamofascism is a term only used by Islamophobes. Islamic extremists only do those things to us because they feel that the west is encroaching too much on their culture. There are positive and negative aspects to everything, I just do not believe that, as much good as may be done by proselytising things like democracy, it is not justified.

Ive always felt freedom of speech was abused far beyond how it was meant to be used. The simple question is... would you rather live in fear everyday but retain your "natural" rights... or would you rather live in security and sacrifice some of those rights..
Freedom of speech can never be abused, exactly. It can be used stupidly and things like that, but never abused. I would prefer to live in fear with rights than safe and oppressed. Anyone who believes otherwise is, in my opinion, an unprincipled coward.

Can you back this up? I suppose if you're looking at a very short-term timespan you could justify this. Go back 100 years or so, and it becomes different. A while back, Christian creationism was the only theory taught in schools, and things were banned (like sodomy) on a "moral" basis all the time.

The last 20 years shows a growth of political religiosity. The Moral Majority and its successors. Faith-based initiatives. The idiotic stickers those crazy southerners tried to stick on their biology books. Tennessee's little fiasco a while back. Pennsylvania's current fiasco.

I'm British so traditionally pro-American, after all we've kept a close alliance and worked in a similar way.

I too am British, but have always had some concerns about the value system that the USA has adopted. It always seemed a little to introspective and finance driven.

Personally I'm not anti-American(as in being against normal hard working American men and women). I think it's more down to concern, uncertaintity, general direction.

Nor am I, in any sense anti-american when referring to individual people. Clearly there will be some, amongst the 300 million that I don't/wouldn't like, but I do not believe there to be a higher percentage of these than of any other nationality.

You could argue that the USA has always been pro-active when it comes to war(recent wars like 'Nam and Korea), but as other people have pointed out this was assisting in an existing war. Now it seems to that the 'good guys' are insitigating the attacks, even if it's against countries which most people would agree are 'bad apples' is it right to instigate the hostilities?

Pro-active is a way of saying interfering without saying it. Nearly all of the developed nations have a history of messing around in other countries back yards. The USA in the past was no diferent. However, instigating conflict, where there was none, is traditionally seen as warmongering, or outright aggression. This is the point of dispute at present. Whether 9/11 etc counts as instigating the war in Iraq or not. From my position it does not, as no association between Sadam and 9/11 has come to light. This is also the reason why ther was no outcry about Afghanistan.

Ingredients for trouble?

1) Create/find an enemy - terrorists - an enemy that isn't defined by a convential army or country, but an enemy that can be used to give people something to fight against. An enemy that will pretty much always be there to fight against.. perfect?!

This, IMHO, is due to the US economy being driven by military spending. No enemy, no reason to spend on the military, here comes recession.

2) Increasing nationalism - chest thumping - pride. Everyone should be proud of their country and patriotic, but when does it cross over into dangerous nationalism?

When it gets to the "Either you are with us or you are against us" stage it is dangerous. What I mean by this is that blind patriotism, unconsidered support of your country, no matter what, is dangerous. Of course you do not have to support the activity of your government in a free country. It is your right to hold a differing opinion. This does not mean that you are anti-American (or anti-British, or whatever) it just means that you disagree with that particular policy.

3) Incredibly powerful military machine - does this mean that other nations should start trying to play catch up and militarising their countries? Can we afford to rest on our laurels now that the USA not only has the most powerful military but is prepared to use it in 'first strike' activities?

As non-proliferation treaties and such show, the USA, in particular, does not want any other country to "catch up". I think that other countries should concern themselves only with the level of military strength that is relavant to their particular region/position. i.e. Japan/China, India/Pakistan are all in regions where military force is the norm. Brazil, Sweden, Tunisia, New Zealand are in regions or positions where only a relatively small military is required. The answer then is each to their own needs.

4) Increased power of extreme(relatively) religous powers. The increasing encrouchement of religion into American politics.

This is worrying, given the founding principles of the USA. Frredom of beleif is not a given right everywhere, but it is enshrined in the US constitution and should be observed. The silent majority should tell the moral manipulators of the Christian Right where to get off.

5) Publically stated aims of neo-conservatives, looks like they've realised that resource wars are almost inevitable so are attempting to jump on the boat first. So you can say they're just looking out for American interests, but is it right?

In the American ethos, if it is in your interest, and you can do it, and no one is going to stop you, then it is right. Fairness is not really a concept that exists outside of academia in the capitalist mindset (which includes me). When people talk, they like to be fair, to treat others equally, but whent the cookie crumbles, everyone grabs for the biggest piece.

Plenty to think about, comment on there. I know it's the same old same old being brought up again, but what would the average American think if us pesky Europeans starting getting up to our old tricks again (invasions etc.)

Which specific old tricks are you thinking of? Colonizing unexplored lands is a bit unlikely unless you want to colonize Antarctica under the ice. Internal warfare between European states would be great for the USA right now. They could sell trillions of dollars of arms to both sides, and have a large economic threat reduced to smouldering cinders. Talking and being reasonable about things. Well we are trying to do that anyway.

The last 20 years shows a growth of political religiosity. The Moral Majority and its successors. Faith-based initiatives. The idiotic stickers those crazy southerners tried to stick on their biology books. Tennessee's little fiasco a while back. Pennsylvania's current fiasco.
Well thanks. I had managed to block those out of my mind for while. You just had to remind me! :(

We didn't invent islamofascist terrorism as an enemy. We were attacked by islamofascists. The African embassy bombings, the USS Cole bombing, the first attack on the WTC, and 9/11 were acts of war. We are simply fighting back. BTW, I don't consider Iraq part of the war on terror although we are now fighting terrorists in Iraq.

True. But terrorism goes back before the African embassy bombings, and yet it was only seen as a minor irritation for decades.

The last 20 years shows a growth of political religiosity. The Moral Majority and its successors. Faith-based initiatives. The idiotic stickers those crazy southerners tried to stick on their biology books. Tennessee's little fiasco a while back. Pennsylvania's current fiasco.
Right - the current situation is nothing new.

On the subject of religion in American politics, some have said it's always been there, and so what? Some have said it's scary. My personal(and maybe somewhat cynical view) is that religion comes into politics as a tool, e.g use the religous tool to acheive genuine political aims. It doesn't matter whether the religous side of it is revelent or not, so long as it get the people on the 'right side'.

As for some of the comments on nam and korea, well I'm not really well versed enough on that part of history. Needless to say that I agree with the person that states that South Korea is and was happy with the outcome(welll they would have perferred a unified Korea of course). I don't really know much about what nam was actually for either(fighting communists basically?) I suppose the point is, should what we tradionally call 'the allies', wait until the 'bad guys' attack again? Putting terrorists to one side, let's suppose we left Iraq(but tried to fix the UN corruption of course) and waited till Iraq struck again(Iraqi army) at a neighbor(which after being caught he seemed to suggest).. Think about the result... Iraq invades... whole world agrees this can't be allowed... we invade Iraq and topple Sadaam. Question, with the extra time and planning would things have turned out better? Would there be less insurgency if things had gone that way?

I'm not saying it [ Korea ] was idiotic, per se, I am just stating that there really wasn't justification.


Islamofascism is a term only used by Islamophobes. Islamic extremists only do those things to us because they feel that the west is encroaching too much on their culture. There are positive and negative aspects to everything, I just do not believe that, as much good as may be done by proselytising things like democracy, it is not justified.


Freedom of speech can never be abused, exactly. It can be used stupidly and things like that, but never abused. I would prefer to live in fear with rights than safe and oppressed. Anyone who believes otherwise is, in my opinion, an unprincipled coward.

How on Earth can you reconcile the last two statements with the first one???

"I want to keep my own freedoms, but won't lift a finger to help others gain theirs?" What's WRONG with this picture???

I'm not saying it was idiotic, per se, I am just stating that there really wasn't justification.

If my memory serves me correctly.. The UN (primarly the US) acted only after the North Invaded South Korea which was identified as a seporate nation by several leading world powers (really the only condition for being identified as a sovergin nation... so there infact was justification..

Freedom of speech can never be abused, exactly. It can be used stupidly and things like that, but never abused. I would prefer to live in fear with rights than safe and oppressed. Anyone who believes otherwise is, in my opinion, an unprincipled coward.

You've just declared the Anarchists montra.. the primary purpose, and what i belive the sole purpose of Government is security.. to offer their citizens the right to live without fear.. because lets face it, what good is freedom of speech if you can't speak without fear of being killed for your words, or freedom of religion, if you can't practice outside your home without fear of death, or any other right we enjoy. Without the right to live without fear, all other freedoms become essentally moot.. and those who belive in the montra of anarchy I feel fail to realize the realities of the world.

The income tax for every earner who pays income taxes was cut, it is a fact.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=211

It is a fact. It's also a fact that the average wage earner got a $300 tax break, and the average multi-millionaire got a <insert insane amount here> tax break.

On the subject of religion in American politics, some have said it's always been there, and so what? Some have said it's scary. My personal(and maybe somewhat cynical view) is that religion comes into politics as a tool, e.g use the religous tool to acheive genuine political aims. It doesn't matter whether the religous side of it is revelent or not, so long as it get the people on the 'right side'.

As for some of the comments on nam and korea, well I'm not really well versed enough on that part of history. Needless to say that I agree with the person that states that South Korea is and was happy with the outcome(welll they would have perferred a unified Korea of course). I don't really know much about what nam was actually for either(fighting communists basically?) I suppose the point is, should what we tradionally call 'the allies', wait until the 'bad guys' attack again? Putting terrorists to one side, let's suppose we left Iraq(but tried to fix the UN corruption of course) and waited till Iraq struck again(Iraqi army) at a neighbor(which after being caught he seemed to suggest).. Think about the result... Iraq invades... whole world agrees this can't be allowed... we invade Iraq and topple Sadaam. Question, with the extra time and planning would things have turned out better? Would there be less insurgency if things had gone that way?

On miss conception often proclaimed is that the US had the obligation to go into IRaq in the first war desert storm and topple saddam then.. However, had we done so we would have exceeded the UN mandate which only said to repell the Iraqi forces. Essentially had we done it 12 years ago, it would have been the same thing we did this time around, an essentially unilateral action against a soverign nation, and against so called "international law"...

Increasing encrouchment of religion into american politics ??? If you really belive that religion hasn't always played a vital and powerful role in politics since the nations inception, you truely dont understand politics at all. Religion has been infused in politics and governmental functions since the time of the founding fathers... what is it the Judges of the Supreme court say every time they take session, what is it that every witness takes an oath on before taking the stand.. what is printed on our national currency. Religion hasn't been magically encrouching on politics... its always been there!

It is not a requirement that you swear an oath on a bible to take the stand. The "In God We Trust" has only been on the currency consistently since the 1950s. There has always been an ELEMENT of religion in politics, if only because most Americans are religious. However, religion is quickly becoming enshrined in our politics, and that's a big no-no.

No, you shouldnt.
The US will switch course entirly in four years. Its wonderful, isnt it?

Ive always felt freedom of speech was abused far beyond how it was meant to be used. The simple question is... would you rather live in fear everyday but retain your "natural" rights... or would you rather live in security and sacrifice some of those rights..

This the question people of every nation have to answer. Too far one way is anarchy, too far the other is authoritarianism.

The problem here is that Americans are getting a taste of increased authoritarianism. And surprise surprise surprise, it coincides with the consolidation of Republican power!

5) Of course America has a right to look out for American interests, but to cop a classic comic book line, with great power comes great responsibility. Neocons scare the crap out of paleocons, moderates and liberals.
Ironically, spiderman goes around saving people.

How on Earth can you reconcile the last two statements with the first one???

"I want to keep my own freedoms, but won't lift a finger to help others gain theirs?" What's WRONG with this picture???
...I see where you're coming from. However, my main point is that it is fine to fight for others' freedom, just actually do that. Viet Nam and Korea were not fighting for freedom, they were fighting against Communism. The U.S. has done much specifically against Communism, and other things we just proclaim as wrong, and often set up even worse systems of government. We had destroyed democracies in the making just because we thought they would side with teh Soviets or the Chinese. If we have the right intents at heart, then I'm all for it. However, that doesn't happen to be how our wars seem to be.

You've just declared the Anarchists montra
Perhaps, though I'm not an anarchist myself.

the primary purpose, and what i belive the sole purpose of Government is security.. to offer their citizens the right to live without fear.. because lets face it, what good is freedom of speech if you can't speak without fear of being killed for your words, or freedom of religion, if you can't practice outside your home without fear of death, or any other right we enjoy. Without the right to live without fear, all other freedoms become essentally moot.. and those who belive in the montra of anarchy I feel fail to realize the realities of the world.
Well then I'm sure you would welcome a Brave New World, wouldn't you?

It is a fact. It's also a fact that the average wage earner got a $300 tax break, and the average multi-millionaire got a <insert insane amount here> tax break.

dont those multi-millionaires pay 80% of our taxes to begin with.. so if tax breakes were being given out proportionally, wouldn't it stand logically to expect that they would get the largest portions of the tax break ? .. i dont know why people are so stunned.. either they think the meger sums they give in for taxes is enough to run one department let alone the entire government, or they simply expected that the government one favor one class of citizen over another.. something that could well be considered unconstitutional

It is a fact. It's also a fact that the average wage earner got a $300 tax break, and the average multi-millionaire got a <insert insane amount here> tax break.
And how much more does the average multi-millionare pay in taxes than the average wage earner again?

Well thanks. I had managed to block those out of my mind for while. You just had to remind me! :(

Sorry, Charlie.

It is a fact. It's also a fact that the average wage earner got a $300 tax break, and the average multi-millionaire got a <insert insane amount here> tax break.

I know how these threads free fall, but I didn't want it to get into domestic policies like US taxes. I'm not trying to belittle comments, but I was wondering if other people think we should be worried about the USA? I mean, I don't live in a country that's part of an axis-of-evil and we don't have much resources. Most European countries are in the same position, but some didn't go along with the US and maybe in the long run they'll suffer with lack of or more expensive resources?

As someone mentioned I didn't experience such tensions as the Cuban Missile Crisis though I did live through a lot of the cold war. The current situation is nothing compared, and it's probably empire building plain and simple which doesn't necessarily result in world war, and as other people have said "every dog has it's day". Still worried though!

True. But terrorism goes back before the African embassy bombings, and yet it was only seen as a minor irritation for decades.
The Cold War war considered just a little bit more important.

...I see where you're coming from. However, my main point is that it is fine to fight for others' freedom, just actually do that. Viet Nam and Korea were not fighting for freedom, they were fighting against Communism. The U.S. has done much specifically against Communism, and other things we just proclaim as wrong, and often set up even worse systems of government. We had destroyed democracies in the making just because we thought they would side with teh Soviets or the Chinese. If we have the right intents at heart, then I'm all for it. However, that doesn't happen to be how our wars seem to be.


Isnt fighting against the North Korean communism essentially fighting for the freedom of the people? Unless you feel North Koreans arn't suppressed oppressed people... You try to seporate fighting for freedom and fighting communism.. but Communism is state control over everday life, so fighting communism is fighting for freedom.. And they were sided with both China and the Soviets, the only reason why we went under the UN flag in those days was because the Soviets were currently protesting the Security council so they weren't there to veto the vote to act against the North Koreans.. And the only reason why the N. Koreans were able to fight us back to the 34th parallel (or whatever parallel it is) is because hugh relif supplies where shiped in from Chinese factories

The only point you really have is on Vietnam which was an unjustified war from the start, faking an attack on our own ship to get congress to activiate the war powers act.

Right - the current situation is nothing new.

Not so. From Scopes up to around the 1960s, science was on the rise. In the last 30 -40 years, it has become the enemy again, mostly because of the rise of the power of the religious Right.

Just look at the heroes in movies and books. Scientists used to be a staple hero in the 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s. Starting in the 60s, scientists were starting to take a hit, mostly because the hippies blamed scientists for the nuclear bomb.

On the subject of religion in American politics, some have said it's always been there, and so what? Some have said it's scary. My personal(and maybe somewhat cynical view) is that religion comes into politics as a tool, e.g use the religous tool to acheive genuine political aims. It doesn't matter whether the religous side of it is revelent or not, so long as it get the people on the 'right side'.

How very Machiavellian of you. I'm impressed. Your journey to the Dark Side is almost complete, young Skywalker.

No, you shouldnt.
The US will switch course entirly in four years. Its wonderful, isnt it?

Not if Jeb wins in'08. :mad:

Ironically, spiderman goes around saving people.
Kind of my point, actually. The US should be nicer to other peoples, and offer our help freely and equally to anyone not violating human rights. Unfortunately, that ain't happenin' any time soon.

dont those multi-millionaires pay 80% of our taxes to begin with.. so if tax breakes were being given out proportionally, wouldn't it stand logically to expect that they would get the largest portions of the tax break ? .. i dont know why people are so stunned.. either they think the meger sums they give in for taxes is enough to run one department let alone the entire government, or they simply expected that the government one favor one class of citizen over another.. something that could well be considered unconstitutional

Hmm.. hang on.... don't the lowest earners contibute the most tax revenue? Surely it can't be any other way? There's been endless debates in the UK about raising the top level tax for the very rich but it will earn hardly anything. I think the biggest money earner for the government would be a 1% increase on the lowest rate of tax(in the UK that 20%).

Maybe things are different in the US if there's more 'above average' wealthy people, but I'd imagine with the huge US populatation it's the low income earners who provide the most tax? (sorry for going against what I just said about thread free fall) ;)

Well then I'm sure you would welcome a Brave New World, wouldn't you?

In the words of Jon Stewart: Oh, snap!

Not so. From Scopes up to around the 1960s, science was on the rise. In the last 30 -40 years, it has become the enemy again, mostly because of the rise of the power of the religious Right.

Just look at the heroes in movies and books. Scientists used to be a staple hero in the 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s. Starting in the 60s, scientists were starting to take a hit, mostly because the hippies blamed scientists for the nuclear bomb.
No, with the possible exception of very early American history, religion has remained dominant until the 1960s. Then came things such as Griswold v Connecticut and Roe v Wade. Then it turned back again, especially in the 80's. Things such as "In God We Trust" and anti-sodomy laws aren't products of the last 20 years.

Hmm.. hang on.... don't the lowest earners contibute the most tax revenue? Surely it can't be any other way? There's been endless debates in the UK about raising the top level tax for the very rich but it will earn hardly anything. I think the biggest money earner for the government would be a 1% increase on the lowest rate of tax(in the UK that 20%).

Maybe things are different in the US if there's more 'above average' wealthy people, but I'd imagine with the huge US populatation it's the low income earners who provide the most tax? (sorry for going against what I just said about thread free fall) ;)
The top 5% wage earners in the US pay about 50% of the taxes. The top 20%, aobut 80%. The bottom of the top 20% is somewhere between 200-300 thousand a year I think. I'm not really sure, however.

How very Machiavellian of you. I'm impressed. Your journey to the Dark Side is almost complete, young Skywalker.

LOL... and yet I'm still not quite... Conservative... I do not yet understand the power of the 'Right Side'.

It is not a requirement that you swear an oath on a bible to take the stand. The "In God We Trust" has only been on the currency consistently since the 1950s. There has always been an ELEMENT of religion in politics, if only because most Americans are religious. However, religion is quickly becoming enshrined in our politics, and that's a big no-no.

.... religion hasn't always been enshrined in our politics ?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp

Religion has been engraved in the very buildings our government resides in!
To think Religion wasn't on the minds of the founding fathers as they were crafting the government itself is folly..

before every session of the supreme court i belive the words "God Save this Honorable Court" is spoken.. is that simply an ELEMENT of religion in politics ? the Judiciary is seporated from politics dont forget!

True. But terrorism goes back before the African embassy bombings, and yet it was only seen as a minor irritation for decades.
It never hit us on the scale of 9/11.

The US should be nicer to other peoples, and offer our help freely and equally to anyone not violating human rights.
Um, this describes maybe a total of 5 countries at most that are in economic straits that would really need our help.

I'd like to remind everyone that when the Consitution was initially drafted so many decades ago, the form of government that was developed (that is, our current system) was something the world had never seen before. Compared to almost all other forms of government, the democratic republic system is still very, very young. Two hundred plus years is not enough time to expect a form of government to mature, not when more commonplace forms over government have existed for millennia. We're still a young country, and we've still got a long way to go. Whatever problems our government is having will be eventually ironed out; that's why the founding fathers created the amendment system. This country was founded to be a rule of the majority, but the minority still has a chance to state its case. Hopefully, that is one element that will never change...it's the fundamental freedom that drives this never-ending experiment we can the United States of America.

This Moment of Reason was brought to you by a true moderate American.

dont those multi-millionaires pay 80% of our taxes to begin with.. so if tax breakes were being given out proportionally, wouldn't it stand logically to expect that they would get the largest portions of the tax break ? .. i dont know why people are so stunned.. either they think the meger sums they give in for taxes is enough to run one department let alone the entire government, or they simply expected that the government one favor one class of citizen over another.. something that could well be considered unconstitutional

The percentage is even higher than that, actually. But if you look at proportionality, the multi-millionaires still come out ahead.

Plus, the multimillionaires can afford to pay those higher taxes. Face it, once you reach a certain amount of money, you literally can't even give it away fast enough to reduce the amount of money you have. It then just becomes a way of keeping score.

The ultra-rich get dollars out of their tax cut, and go buy a new Jaguar.

I get $300 out my tax cut, and can't even make an extra house payment with it.

Who comes out better off in the end?

Hmm.. hang on.... don't the lowest earners contibute the most tax revenue? Surely it can't be any other way? There's been endless debates in the UK about raising the top level tax for the very rich but it will earn hardly anything. I think the biggest money earner for the government would be a 1% increase on the lowest rate of tax(in the UK that 20%).

Maybe things are different in the US if there's more 'above average' wealthy people, but I'd imagine with the huge US populatation it's the low income earners who provide the most tax? (sorry for going against what I just said about thread free fall) ;)
No, the top quintile pays the most in taxes out of any group in the US. The top 10% has a 50% share of the total federal tax liablity.

Hmm.. hang on.... don't the lowest earners contibute the most tax revenue? Surely it can't be any other way? There's been endless debates in the UK about raising the top level tax for the very rich but it will earn hardly anything. I think the biggest money earner for the government would be a 1% increase on the lowest rate of tax(in the UK that 20%).

Maybe things are different in the US if there's more 'above average' wealthy people, but I'd imagine with the huge US populatation it's the low income earners who provide the most tax? (sorry for going against what I just said about thread free fall) ;)

Aparently things are VERY different from England and the US.. not to my surprise.. the top 5% in this country pays out 80% of the governments tax revenues.. the lowest earners dont contribute the most taxe revenues because they essentially pay nothing in taxes as relative to the total tax revenue income! So there is no injustice done when the richest people in the country actually get the greatest share of the tax cut.. because they essentially pay all the taxes!

I know how these threads free fall, but I didn't want it to get into domestic policies like US taxes. I'm not trying to belittle comments, but I was wondering if other people think we should be worried about the USA? I mean, I don't live in a country that's part of an axis-of-evil and we don't have much resources. Most European countries are in the same position, but some didn't go along with the US and maybe in the long run they'll suffer with lack of or more expensive resources?

As someone mentioned I didn't experience such tensions as the Cuban Missile Crisis though I did live through a lot of the cold war. The current situation is nothing compared, and it's probably empire building plain and simple which doesn't necessarily result in world war, and as other people have said "every dog has it's day". Still worried though!

Honestly, as the EU gains in economic clout, I would worry if I lived in a member nation.

The top 5% wage earners in the US pay about 50% of the taxes. The top 20%, aobut 80%. The bottom of the top 20% is somewhere between 200-300 thousand a year I think. I'm not really sure, however.

Those are very interesting figures... almost sounds like a socialist taxing policy... weird!

.... religion hasn't always been enshrined in our politics ?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp

Religion has been engraved in the very buildings our government resides in!
To think Religion wasn't on the minds of the founding fathers as they were crafting the government itself is folly..

before every session of the supreme court i belive the words "God Save this Honorable Court" is spoken.. is that simply an ELEMENT of religion in politics ? the Judiciary is seporated from politics dont forget!
God can be taken as narrowly or as broadly as you want. It can either refer to a general God or gods, encompassing all religions, or it can refer more narrowly to the Judeochristian God. Personally, I prefer to use the more general usage, not because it's "politically correct", but because it expresses the freedom to practice religion, any religion, that is one of our core rights as American citizens.

The ultra-rich get dollars out of their tax cut, and go buy a new Jaguar.
The ultra-rich tend not to qualify as wage earners actually. Besides which, the Dems house and senate membership is about 40% richer than the republican side. And THK only paid 12.5% in taxes in 2003 or 4.

The Cold War war considered just a little bit more important.

Granted. All I'm saying is that now that "those Commies" are "gone", terrorists are now being trumped up as the new "Big Bad".

The percentage is even higher than that, actually. But if you look at proportionality, the multi-millionaires still come out ahead.

Plus, the multimillionaires can afford to pay those higher taxes. Face it, once you reach a certain amount of money, you literally can't even give it away fast enough to reduce the amount of money you have. It then just becomes a way of keeping score.

The ultra-rich get dollars out of their tax cut, and go buy a new Jaguar.

I get $300 out my tax cut, and can't even make an extra house payment with it.

Who comes out better off in the end?

seeing how they pay out so much money in taxes that they could buy your life 3 times over in a span of 10 years, i still belive the tax break is proporational.. it looks wrong that they get a tax break and can buy a new car.. but you still fail too look at the amount of which they actually shell out in taxes each year.. im sure if they were paying the same amount you paid in taxes, they could buy more then just 1 jag each year.. probably 3 or 4 ...

The ultra-rich tend not to qualify as wage earners actually. Besides which, the Dems house and senate membership is about 40% richer than the republican side. And THK only paid 12.5% in taxes in 2003 or 4.
ok who wants to hear all of the non anti-democrats facts he cut out now

grow the fuck up

God can be taken as narrowly or as broadly as you want. It can either refer to a general God or gods, encompassing all religions, or it can refer more narrowly to the Judeochristian God. Personally, I prefer to use the more general usage, not because it's "politically correct", but because it expresses the freedom to practice religion, any religion, that is one of our core rights as American citizens.

Which is exactly how i feel religion is being used in this country today.. not singling out judeochristanism but rather realizing the presence of some omni being in general... a reality every atheist seems unable to come to terms with..

This government was founded on the need for religious freedom, laws based on religious morality.. is there any wonder why religion plays such a prominent role in politics today.. ? And while many would like us to be as secular as many of the European nations, let us not forget the incredible intolerance that has and still today exists throughout many European nations. Which i might add has only increased over the years .. America (though you might not think it from the retoric on each side) is a far more tolerant society, and i belive it is in part due to the fact that religion is recognized in the most general terms in governmental functions and politics

And what direction is the United States taking in world affairs today.. an active role ? Europeans seem content to work through the United nations, and institution now revealed to have been embroiled with scandel and corruption in its program for Iraq, which the US was blamed for in the first place (injustice of Sanctions), as well as failor in the Balkins, Rwanda, and now dahfur... should we not be more concerned with Europes undying devotion for the inefficencies of the UN? and such discontent with the United States that they now consider shifting to favoritism with CHINA of all counties (aparently setting aside their gross human rights history and that they are not even a democracy). Europe led by France is so desperate to contend with the United States they will sacrifice anything to acheive their goals..

Even today, i would rather be in an American prision suspected of TErrorism, then a chinese one suspected of working agianst "the party".

Hmm.. hang on.... don't the lowest earners contibute the most tax revenue? Surely it can't be any other way? There's been endless debates in the UK about raising the top level tax for the very rich but it will earn hardly anything. I think the biggest money earner for the government would be a 1% increase on the lowest rate of tax(in the UK that 20%).

Maybe things are different in the US if there's more 'above average' wealthy people, but I'd imagine with the huge US populatation it's the low income earners who provide the most tax? (sorry for going against what I just said about thread free fall) ;)

My last post on taxes:

The Loss of Tax Progressivity
Effective Family Federal Tax Rate (Income and FICA)1
Year Median Millionaire or Top 1%
1948 5.3% 76.9%
1955 9.1 85.5
1960 12.4 85.5
1965 11.6 66.9
1970 16.1 68.6
1975 20.0 --
1977 -- 35.5
1980 23.7 31.7
1985 24.4 24.9
1989 24.4 26.7
Total Effective Tax Rates for All Families (Federal Income and Payroll Taxes)2

Quintile 1980 1985 1990 % change 1980-90
Lowest 20% 8.4% 10.6 9.7 16.1%
Second 20% 15.7 16.1 16.7 6.0
Third 20% 20.0 19.3 20.3 1.2
Fourth 20% 23.0 21.7 22.5 -2.2
Highest 20% 27.3 24.0 25.8 -5.5
Top 1% 31.8 24.9 27.2 -14.4


From: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/3Taxes.htm


I'd say the rich ain't hurtin' none if we stop giving them tax breaks.

I hear a lot about "separation of church and state," but to me, it doesn't mean that the religion of the head of state shouldn't allow his/her personal convictions to affect the way that he/she does the job unless it would violate the Constitution and/or existing laws. It means that the government has no right to prohibit its citizens from practicing any particular religion(s), and in my view, aside from cases in which a cult has become violent or otherwise destructive, the government has done a good job of keeping out of religious business. This doesn't necessarily work in reverse, though; certain religious groups (e.g. "Moral Majority") have lobbied heavily in Congress to push their agendas. This is fine, as long as said agendas do not supress the rights of any group of people, race, religion, gender, or (as in recent cases) sexuality.

(Here comes the backlash...)

So what are the actual tax rates/bands in the USA?

In the UK there are as follows, and these are for 'the part earned for that tax bracket' (per year, you'll have to do your own currency conversion):

£0 - £2,020: 10%
£2,020 - 31,400: 22%
£31,400+ : 40%


It's more complicated than that, but the gist of it is, I could earn £780,000 a year and on most of it I'll get taxed at %40... what me and my work collegues keep talking about in the pub is a true sliding scale(must be capped at some level)... which means the more the earn, up to a point, the more useless it is to earn that. This should still mean that they earn plenty but you then have to work out where money for investement comes in... maybe this comes from companies more than individuals..? Boy it's complicated ;)

So the biggest income earner for the UK government are low to middle class people bringing in %22, plus national insurance(this is like our enforced medical insurance, which I spose is nice in a away. Don't know if it's the same in the US, but if I get run over and have to stay in hospital for six months I don't pay(hey, I already payed for it many times over!).

So what are the actual tax rates/bands in the USA?

In the UK there are as follows, and these are for 'the part earned for that tax bracket' (per year, you'll have to do your own currency conversion):

£0 - £2,020: 10%
£2,020 - 31,400: 22%
£31,400+ : 40%


It's more complicated than that, but the gist of it is, I could earn £780,000 a year and on most of it I'll get taxed at %40... what me and my work collegues keep talking about in the pub is a true sliding scale(must be capped at some level)... which means the more the earn, up to a point, the more useless it is to earn that. This should still mean that they earn plenty but you then have to work out where money for investement comes in... maybe this comes from companies more than individuals..? Boy it's complicated ;)

So the biggest income earner for the UK government are low to middle class people bringing in %22, plus national insurance(this is like our enforced medical insurance, which I spose is nice in a away. Don't know if it's the same in the US, but if I get run over and have to stay in hospital for six months I don't pay(hey, I already payed for it many times over!).

as someone already posted, this site explains it well enough

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=211

I can't tell you what the tax rates are, but I can tell you this. I'm a entry-level conputer tech making less than 20k a year, and I didn't need any deductions in order to get money back from the government. My taxes are paid (then again, I had my employer take out as much as he could from my paycheck for taxes), and I'm not the least bit worried. Why should anyone worry about paying taxes? To paraphrase the old saying, it's the only thing as certain as death.

It depends if you're single, married, and filling jointly or separately.

For married, filing jointly (highest income thresholds) :

$0-14,300 is 10%
$14,300 - $58,100 is 15%
$58,100 - 117,250 is 25%
$117,250 to $178,600 is 28%
$178,600 to $319,100 is 33%
Over $319,100 is 35%

as someone already posted, this site explains it well enough

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=211
This link is better, because the other one only deals with the original round of tax cuts :
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=325

No, with the possible exception of very early American history, religion has remained dominant until the 1960s. Then came things such as Griswold v Connecticut and Roe v Wade. Then it turned back again, especially in the 80's. Things such as "In God We Trust" and anti-sodomy laws aren't products of the last 20 years.

You're right. "In God We Trust" is primarily a product of McCarthyism, so it's about 50 years old. Anti-sodomy laws are trickier. Some places have had them on the books from day one, other places only recently, yet others not at all.

Roe v Wade had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the growth of feminism, an entirely different subject, although they do intersect a few times. Feminism dates back to the suffrage movement in the 1920s. And science had been a growing part of our country's politics from the late 1800s until 1960s. If you like, we can debate this somewhere else, though, since it doesn't really fit this thread.

I will admit that Griswold v Connecticut touched on religion, but it was a 100 year old law, for goodness sake!

I can't tell you what the tax rates are, but I can tell you this. I'm a entry-level conputer tech making less than 20k a year, and I didn't need any deductions in order to get money back from the government. My taxes are paid (then again, I had my employer take out as much as he could from my paycheck for taxes), and I'm not the least bit worried. Why should anyone worry about paying taxes? To paraphrase the old saying, it's the only thing as certain as death.

... well up until now you could have thrown social security into that cliche

Taxes, social security, and death

I'd like to remind everyone that when the Consitution was initially drafted so many decades ago, the form of government that was developed (that is, our current system) was something the world had never seen before. Compared to almost all other forms of government, the democratic republic system is still very, very young.
Well, then, I take you haven't heard of Classical Greece, Rome, or pre-European Native Americans?

.... religion hasn't always been enshrined in our politics ?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp

Religion has been engraved in the very buildings our government resides in!
To think Religion wasn't on the minds of the founding fathers as they were crafting the government itself is folly..

before every session of the supreme court i belive the words "God Save this Honorable Court" is spoken.. is that simply an ELEMENT of religion in politics ? the Judiciary is seporated from politics dont forget!

Since the Judiciary is supposedly separated from politics, then no, it's not an element of religion in politics. Its an element of religion in the judiciary.

And did you READ the Snopes article? It doesn't really support your point.

Well, then, I take you haven't heard of Classical Greece, Rome, or pre-European Native Americans?
It's possible that maybe I did forget some countries with a similar form of government that existed before the US, but to my knowledge, no one was ever drafted a Constitution with rules for a republic democracy before. If you can show me evidence of formal constitutions for republic democracies from older civilizations, I'll concede.

Um, this describes maybe a total of 5 countries at most that are in economic straits that would really need our help.

Currently, yes. However, the offer of aid should urge other countries to clean up their human rights actions, yes?

It never hit us on the scale of 9/11.

Granted.

If you can show me evidence of formal constitutions for republic democracies from older civilizations, I'll concede.
Oh, there are no Constitutions for those, but some Native Americans, the tribe(s) elude me at the moment, had the most democratic form of governemnt that we're aware of ever existing. And they lasted for millenia, as far as we know.

I'd like to remind everyone that when the Consitution was initially drafted so many decades ago, the form of government that was developed (that is, our current system) was something the world had never seen before. Compared to almost all other forms of government, the democratic republic system is still very, very young. Two hundred plus years is not enough time to expect a form of government to mature, not when more commonplace forms over government have existed for millennia. We're still a young country, and we've still got a long way to go. Whatever problems our government is having will be eventually ironed out; that's why the founding fathers created the amendment system. This country was founded to be a rule of the majority, but the minority still has a chance to state its case. Hopefully, that is one element that will never change...it's the fundamental freedom that drives this never-ending experiment we can the United States of America.

This Moment of Reason was brought to you by a true moderate American.

All this is true, and thanks for reminding us, but honestly, I'm not worried about what happens 100 years from now. I want things to be as good as they can be right now. I'd say the rest of the world would like us to grow up a little faster, as well.

All this is true
No, actually, it isn't all true.

As I said before, it's possible there may be some earlier civilizations with similar forms of government...but "possible" and "confirmed" are two different things. No evidence, no transition from "possible" to "confirmed." Sorry...

(Note: no, I am not deliberately trying to sound mean. I'm just saying that I could be wrong, but before I dive into the pool, I want to make sure there's water in it.)

The ultra-rich tend not to qualify as wage earners actually. Besides which, the Dems house and senate membership is about 40% richer than the republican side. And THK only paid 12.5% in taxes in 2003 or 4.

Sorry, I've been up for about 23 hours now. What's THK? And your right about the Dems. Of course, that's because they tend to use their personal wealth more often to get elected, compared to the Republcans, who have a much better money-raising machine.

All this is true, and thanks for reminding us, but honestly, I'm not worried about what happens 100 years from now. I want things to be as good as they can be right now. I'd say the rest of the world would like us to grow up a little faster, as well.
Impatience can be just as dangerous as arrogance or cockiness. Attempting to rush the rise to governmental "maturity" can be as dangerous as thinking no changes are needed at all to the status quo.

seeing how they pay out so much money in taxes that they could buy your life 3 times over in a span of 10 years, i still belive the tax break is proporational.. it looks wrong that they get a tax break and can buy a new car.. but you still fail too look at the amount of which they actually shell out in taxes each year.. im sure if they were paying the same amount you paid in taxes, they could buy more then just 1 jag each year.. probably 3 or 4 ...


Okay, wrong word. Replace proportional with equitable.

Equitable as in: implying justice dictated by reason, conscience, and a natural sense of what is fair to all;

Heavier taxes on the rich actually redistribute wealth to the middle class and poor, which stimulates the economy MUCH more than trickle down economics. Mostly because in a global economy, trickle down becomes trickle out.

Which is exactly how i feel religion is being used in this country today.. not singling out judeochristanism but rather realizing the presence of some omni being in general... a reality every atheist seems unable to come to terms with..

This government was founded on the need for religious freedom, laws based on religious morality.. is there any wonder why religion plays such a prominent role in politics today.. ? And while many would like us to be as secular as many of the European nations, let us not forget the incredible intolerance that has and still today exists throughout many European nations. Which i might add has only increased over the years .. America (though you might not think it from the retoric on each side) is a far more tolerant society, and i belive it is in part due to the fact that religion is recognized in the most general terms in governmental functions and politics

Our laws were not based on religious morality. They were, for the most part, based on Enlightenment ideals.

I hear a lot about "separation of church and state," but to me, it doesn't mean that the religion of the head of state shouldn't allow his/her personal convictions to affect the way that he/she does the job unless it would violate the Constitution and/or existing laws. It means that the government has no right to prohibit its citizens from practicing any particular religion(s), and in my view, aside from cases in which a cult has become violent or otherwise destructive, the government has done a good job of keeping out of religious business. This doesn't necessarily work in reverse, though; certain religious groups (e.g. "Moral Majority") have lobbied heavily in Congress to push their agendas. This is fine, as long as said agendas do not supress the rights of any group of people, race, religion, gender, or (as in recent cases) sexuality.

(Here comes the backlash...)

Three words: Faith-based initiatives.

Allow me to clarify something:

I am not saying the United States is doing just fine right now. On the contrary, I'm saying that, not unlike a piece of software, there are bugs in the system. Trying to rapidly iron out the wrinkles in the system can cause key problems to be inadvertantly overlooked, which can result in an unstable product (or in this case, government). We are by no means there yet, and if you consider "there" to mean perfection, we will never get there. There are always going to be problems, and even taking the wrong action against those problems is better than taking no action at all.

No, actually, it isn't all true.

A. Which parts did you disagree with?

B. I was just being polite, since I didn't really want to argue all that. ;)

Impatience can be just as dangerous as arrogance or cockiness. Attempting to rush the rise to governmental "maturity" can be as dangerous as thinking no changes are needed at all to the status quo.

I'm not talking about rushing to anything. However, if we have an opportunity to "rise to governmental maturity" a little bit, shouldn't we take it?

I'm not talking about rushing to anything. However, if we have an opportunity to "rise to governmental maturity" a little bit, shouldn't we take it?
Indeed, we should. But we can't take huge leaps, or we're liable to trip over our own feet.

Allow me to clarify something:

I am not saying the United States is doing just fine right now. On the contrary, I'm saying that, not unlike a piece of software, there are bugs in the system. Trying to rapidly iron out the wrinkles in the system can cause key problems to be inadvertantly overlooked, which can result in an unstable product (or in this case, government). We are by no means there yet, and if you consider "there" to mean perfection, we will never get there. There are always going to be problems, and even taking the wrong action against those problems is better than taking no action at all.

The only problem with this analogy is that government is an essential piece of "software" that is in constant use. It's like trying to run a heart monitor on Windows ME. *shudder*

Indeed, we should. But we can't take huge leaps, or we're liable to trip over our own feet.


I always viewed government the same way as Mike Stearns (Character from the book 1632, an awesome beginning to an awesome series, btw): When you are running over broken glass and stumble, you have two choices. You can fall and catch yourself with your hands, shredding your hands. Or you can speed up and hope to get out of the glassy area. I'd rather speed up. It's at least a chance to not get hurt as badly.

The only problem with this analogy is that government is an essential piece of "software" that is in constant use. It's like trying to run a heart monitor on Windows ME. *shudder*
Give me a break...I'm a tech head, so that's where my analogies come from. lol

And Windows ME isn't all that bad if one does all the Windows Updates for it.

Give me a break...I'm a tech head, so that's where my analogies come from. lol

And Windows ME isn't all that bad if one does all the Windows Updates for it.

ME was the most-crash prone OS I ever used.

And with that, I'm going to bed. G'night kids.

ok who wants to hear all of the non anti-democrats facts he cut out now

grow the fuck up

You telling someone else to grow up?? Hahahahahahaha! Oh, that's rich!

Sorry, I've been up for about 23 hours now. What's THK? And your right about the Dems. Of course, that's because they tend to use their personal wealth more often to get elected, compared to the Republcans, who have a much better money-raising machine.
Theresa Heinz Kerry. The woman who thankfully didn't become the First Lady. She should have paid something close to 30-40% in income taxes.

I always viewed government the same way as Mike Stearns (Character from the book 1632, an awesome beginning to an awesome series, btw): When you are running over broken glass and stumble, you have two choices. You can fall and catch yourself with your hands, shredding your hands. Or you can speed up and hope to get out of the glassy area. I'd rather speed up. It's at least a chance to not get hurt as badly.
Almost any book published by Baen goes in the awesome category.

I know none of you represent the US government(maybe you do? Enlighten us!) But I'll ask once again. Should your 'allies' be worried about where you're going? It seems like the US is saying "don't worry dudes.... we're gonna kick those badass evil muthas and everything will be allright" but it causes huge confusion, and I don't mean to bring up WW2 again, but it seems like... Germany gains some part of the Czech repuplic through diplomatic means... ok... give them a chance.. then it's... oh... Austria.... low countries.. France.. oh shit, this isn't good... etc(excuse my bad history). So yet again... shouldn't we be worried about what's going in in the Middle East? Could it end up in many years becomming an offense with us?

Should anyone be worried by the direction the USA is going? YES!

Invading Iraq, without a provocative attack by Iraq, sets a dangerous precedent.

Abraham Lincoln, the 16th US president, set a dangerous precedent by asking the US congress, for emergency powers, that included the suspension of the Writ of Habeus Corpus. In effect, President Lincoln, became a dictator, when Congress granted his request in 1861 AD.

President George W. Bush, is a distant relative of President Abraham Lincoln.

Am I the only one that can see a dangerous precedent being acted out?

Civilian ownership of firearms, on the other hand, which "Dubya" Bush endorses, means he is willing to allow US citizens to protect theirselves from criminal, hence terrorist, attacks.

"Domestic Vigilantism", is a myth created by "Cultural Marxists".

Keep the reins on elected officials, and let the people defend theirselves. It is the American way. ;)

Yes.

Damn Christian conservatives. Go do something useful like learning math, computers, and science. Stop talking about morality. Screw morality. You can say I'm immoral, but I'm just being practical.

This is the problem with Democracy. If we don't like the other side, we can't revolt. You are the greater. Especially since all you reds can shoot and we can't. So uh england, I have a proposal! I say the US breaks in half (blues/reds) and we join you! I don't have a problem with Tony Blair, but I got a problem with Bush!

Isnt fighting against the North Korean communism essentially fighting for the freedom of the people? Unless you feel North Koreans arn't suppressed oppressed people... You try to seporate fighting for freedom and fighting communism.. but Communism is state control over everday life, so fighting communism is fighting for freedom.. And they were sided with both China and the Soviets, the only reason why we went under the UN flag in those days was because the Soviets were currently protesting the Security council so they weren't there to veto the vote to act against the North Koreans.. And the only reason why the N. Koreans were able to fight us back to the 34th parallel (or whatever parallel it is) is because hugh relif supplies where shiped in from Chinese factories

The only point you really have is on Vietnam which was an unjustified war from the start, faking an attack on our own ship to get congress to activiate the war powers act.

I believe that the point that Gnostikos was attempting to make was that the "freeing" of these people from the threat of communism was just an unintended side-effect, not the primary intention of the U.S. at the time. The U.S.'s stated goal during Korea and Vietnam was to stop the spread of communism through southeast Asia, not to free the people there from dictatorial governments. Thus, the U.S. participated in these wars to protect American security interests, not for the pursuit of some lofty moral goal of spreading freedom and liberty. The same can be said for Iraq today, as the original stated intent of the invasion was not the "freeing of the Iraqi people", but was the protection of the U.S. from a dictator with weapons of mass destruction and ties to terrorism. Since neither of these goals turned out to be true, the White House can fall back on that "unintended side-effect" of the war, the freeing of the Iraqi people. This makes it look as though America was not simply acting on it's own self-interest, but rather for the betterment of humanity, and lets Bush and his Neoconservative bretheren come out looking spotless. It's a convenient fallback point which provides certain justifications for just about any war the White House might want to get itself into, providing a win/win situation for the Republicans and the President.

The top 5% wage earners in the US pay about 50% of the taxes. The top 20%, aobut 80%. The bottom of the top 20% is somewhere between 200-300 thousand a year I think. I'm not really sure, however.


[The top 5% wage earners in the US pay about 50% of the taxes] of ALL TAXES? Or... they pay about 50% of their total income?

Posting this from many previous pages, what we need to know is the bands(you have more bands than the UK which is probably a a god thing)... and also contribution to total US tax income. I simply can't see how it's not the low/ middle income earners who contribute most. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, just stating facts... or does it somehow really not work like that in the states?

It depends if you're single, married, and filling jointly or separately.

For married, filing jointly (highest income thresholds) :

$0-14,300 is 10%
$14,300 - $58,100 is 15%
$58,100 - 117,250 is 25%
$117,250 to $178,600 is 28%
$178,600 to $319,100 is 33%
Over $319,100 is 35%

Skipping all the posts in between, seems like a fairer tax system than in the UK

more tax brackets for starters... but ... hang on.. wans't I asking if you're going to invade us when we stop being free or find some more oil in the norht sea? ;)

[The top 5% wage earners in the US pay about 50% of the taxes] of ALL TAXES? Or... they pay about 50% of their total income?

Posting this from many previous pages, what we need to know is the bands(you have more bands than the UK which is probably a a god thing)... and also contribution to total US tax income. I simply can't see how it's not the low/ middle income earners who contribute most. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, just stating facts... or does it somehow really not work like that in the states?
They pay approximately 50% of all INCOME taxes. The top 10% pays exactly 50% of ALL federal taxes. There are also state taxes, however, which vary from state to state.

One should always worry about the direction their country is heading.

They pay approximately 50% of all INCOME taxes. The top 10% pays exactly 50% of ALL federal taxes. There are also state taxes, however, which vary from state to state.

So you have something we'd consider a socialisist taxation policy? That's a revelation... and a nice one actually... but the top 10% paying %50 of all federal tax... it seems incredible.

I will be worried when they start to look south when after the conquer of middle-east.

Bets... place your bets..

1) how long till the next USA draft(i'm thinking within 8 years, regardless of oher political shifts?
2) how long till the next unilateral invasion of a country(sorry you can't count the countries involved in GulfWar2 as part of a multilateral forces.. these are my rules.

Bets... place your bets..

1) how long till the next USA draft(i'm thinking within 8 years, regardless of oher political shifts?
2) how long till the next unilateral invasion of a country(sorry you can't count the countries involved in GulfWar2 as part of a multilateral forces.. these are my rules.

Start a new thread and I will answer! :p

Start a new thread and I will answer! :p
Will do.. but I want to understand the American tax system.. I can't see how %50 of taxes can come from the top 10% of earners!

Will do.. but I want to understand the American tax system.. I can't see how %50 of taxes can come from the top 10% of earners!
Well the average person in the top 5% makes about 25 1/3 times more than the average of the bottom 20% ($253,239 to $9,996).

I'll preface this by stating that I'm a pacifist libertarian.

1. It's a lot easier to attack your opponent's homeland than it is to defend your own. The difference in resources is of orders of magnitude. I don't remember who first stated this (Napoleon maybe?), but it's very common knowledge among military strategists. If, for some reason, you believe that diplomacy is impossible, then aggression really is your best option.

Of course, that doesn't take ethics or popular opinion into account. And since I'm a pacifist, I obviously don't think that diplomacy is ever impossible among humans. Another problem is that terrorist groups are very modular. They don't really have a homeland or even a headquarters to attack. How we decided on Iraq is beyond me.

2. Being a libertarian, I shouldn't mind the Republicans' economic policies so much. However, Bush is an idiot about it (tax cuts and spend!). Corporate welfare needs to stop, and environmental regulations need to start.

3. Civil rights will come when people are ready for them. Talk to your grandparents. They're still racist. I guarantee that gays/whatevers will be fully accepted by the time I'm middle-aged, no matter who's in control. A few stupid laws aren't going to change anybody's opinions, though.

By the way, these numbers aren't supposed to be related to those in the original post. I just felt like they should be numbered.

I'll preface this by stating that I'm a pacifist
<snip>


good points

I believe that the point that Gnostikos was attempting to make was that the "freeing" of these people from the threat of communism was just an unintended side-effect, not the primary intention of the U.S. at the time. The U.S.'s stated goal during Korea and Vietnam was to stop the spread of communism through southeast Asia, not to free the people there from dictatorial governments. Thus, the U.S. participated in these wars to protect American security interests, not for the pursuit of some lofty moral goal of spreading freedom and liberty. The same can be said for Iraq today, as the original stated intent of the invasion was not the "freeing of the Iraqi people", but was the protection of the U.S. from a dictator with weapons of mass destruction and ties to terrorism. Since neither of these goals turned out to be true, the White House can fall back on that "unintended side-effect" of the war, the freeing of the Iraqi people. This makes it look as though America was not simply acting on it's own self-interest, but rather for the betterment of humanity, and lets Bush and his Neoconservative bretheren come out looking spotless. It's a convenient fallback point which provides certain justifications for just about any war the White House might want to get itself into, providing a win/win situation for the Republicans and the President.

I am confused as to why you , and many others here belive there can be only one interest in mind when you take action. And i might add there is undeiable truth that Iraq had ties to terrorism and that it was a state supporter of terrorism. It was Saddam himself who proclaimed palestinian familes whos members became suicide bombers against Israel would receive monetary compensation.. and It was Saddam who protected Al-zukari after he was forced out of Afganistan with the fall of the TAliban.. People simply assume there is no connection between Iraq and terrorism because there is no "clear" connection between Iraq and Al-queda.. but terrorism is not defined by Al-queda, but rather vice ver sa. And freeing the IRaqi people was never an "unintended consequence" but an Identified leading cause for war just like WMD if you so listened to bushes speeches pre-war. The simple fact is Iraq was a win/win situation for America, because it would depose a brutal dictator where the UN could not, and free the people he so suppressed. If the UN actually held to resolution 441, based on the statements by leading wepons inspectors directly pre-war... the UN had every right to invade, yet it was the bought vote of France (under the threat of Veto) which again would make the UN the marginalized institution it is today.. instead of impowering it.

Bets... place your bets..

1) how long till the next USA draft(i'm thinking within 8 years, regardless of oher political shifts?
2) how long till the next unilateral invasion of a country(sorry you can't count the countries involved in GulfWar2 as part of a multilateral forces.. these are my rules.

1)Depends on if Democrats come back into power... seeing how it is democratic representatives now calling for one.. Makes me rather glad bush won instead of Kerry, Im starting to belive the Republican propaganda in that area was actually true....

2) depends on if the United States needs to act again.. Its not like the UN has the capablity to do so on its own, and the marginlized state at which it exists now, the UN is no longer a nessesary tool to deal with destablizing forces

[The top 5% wage earners in the US pay about 50% of the taxes] of ALL TAXES? Or... they pay about 50% of their total income?

Posting this from many previous pages, what we need to know is the bands(you have more bands than the UK which is probably a a god thing)... and also contribution to total US tax income. I simply can't see how it's not the low/ middle income earners who contribute most. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, just stating facts... or does it somehow really not work like that in the states?

Its quite simple... within the top 20% .. the margin of which their income exists is greatly higher then those in the middle and lower income brackets.. lower and middle incomes exist from 10,000 to 90,000 dollars a year.. while higher income brackets exists from 150,000 to well over 400,000 and higher as you reach the top 1 percent. the lower income brackets those making 10,000 a year only pay 10% in taxes, while higher brackets over 150,000 a year pay upward of 40% in taxes.. to this note, the top 20% of income earners in the country end up paying out 80% of the total revenue collected by the government.. its quite simple if you think about it

Granted. All I'm saying is that now that "those Commies" are "gone", terrorists are now being trumped up as the new "Big Bad".
That and the weapons they have access to are becoming progressively more deadly.

Great America is like Great China is like Great Serbia is like Great Germany.


Sooner or later going to crash. Just make sure you don't get hit by the debris.

Hmm.. hang on.... don't the lowest earners contibute the most tax revenue? Surely it can't be any other way? There's been endless debates in the UK about raising the top level tax for the very rich but it will earn hardly anything. I think the biggest money earner for the government would be a 1% increase on the lowest rate of tax(in the UK that 20%).

Maybe things are different in the US if there's more 'above average' wealthy people, but I'd imagine with the huge US populatation it's the low income earners who provide the most tax? (sorry for going against what I just said about thread free fall) ;)

Nope, I forget the exact numbers but the top 10% pay something like 90% of all FEDERAL INCOME taxes. The rest basically dont pay much. These figures will probably change when you look at social security/payroll//medicare taxes. Of course social security is the 3rd rail of us politics so there is no way a first term president was gonna touch that.

The percentage is even higher than that, actually. But if you look at proportionality, the multi-millionaires still come out ahead.

Plus, the multimillionaires can afford to pay those higher taxes. Face it, once you reach a certain amount of money, you literally can't even give it away fast enough to reduce the amount of money you have. It then just becomes a way of keeping score.

The ultra-rich get dollars out of their tax cut, and go buy a new Jaguar.

I get $300 out my tax cut, and can't even make an extra house payment with it.

Who comes out better off in the end?

Why do you think it is the governments(and not an individuals) job to make sure someone comes out better in the end? This is NOT the function of government.

It is not to make everyone equal, it is only to ensure that everyone plays by the same rules.

Why do you think it is the governments(and not an individuals) job to make sure someone comes out better in the end? This is NOT the function of government.

It is not to make everyone equal, it is only to ensure that everyone plays by the same rules.

Then it fails. Because there's no way in Hell Bill Gates plays by the same rules I do.

It is the government's job to guarantee legal equality, i.e. I will be treated just as fairly in the courts as a multimillionaire. When you get such a huge gap between the rich and the poor, that legal equality goes away. Can you honestly say that it doesn't?

It is also the government's job to represent the people of this country to other countries. As things stand, I am embarassed at how we are being represented to the rest of the world. And I will say it again: to all US allies, beware. We have turned on allies before. I'm sure we will do so again. As a matter of fact, that's one of favorite tricks. We trained Osama bin Laden, for Mike's sake!

Uh, it fills me with burning, bile-filled hatred to see honest Americans who just want to oppress gays and golliwogs and eat hamburgers and be fatter than twelve africans tied together be questioned by pimply youths who think that just because they've gone to some gaylord university can tell me not to drive my massive SUV that kills squirrels and burns 2% of the world's fossil fuels every day, not to oppress women and exploit the enviroment and not to send to my obese sons off to kill kids in Terrorististan that are just itching to turn into fully-grown towelheads so they can blow Don Rummie, my favouritest person in the whole wide world who's gonna put all those fags and queers and Joos and rocks stars on his knee and spank them until they realise that they're all Alabamans deep deep down I love eating big, fatty burgers and cutting down tress and me no like stoopid treees and faggy waggys and.... [/leftist rant]