Your Country's Future - Is it bleak?

[Shu]

* Beep Beep * ... * Beep Beep* ... * Beep Beep* - Good- Good Morning,

In today's news we have just been alerted that all books shall be burned. We will now re-issue Governmental issued books that have a seal of the Government. All internet access will now be regulated and have strictly monitoring. Each site will need a Governmental signet of approval. All restaurants will be shut down, and now you will need a food card in which can only be used at a Government cafeteria. You can not know what is in the food, you can not add any additional seasons, if you choose to not eat, it will be logged for the day. You can only have a certain amount of rations.

All transportation will have tracking beacons, tamper proof cameras and will have an emergency shut down switches added by the Government. All medicine will be issued by Government pharmacies. To work for the Government you have to demonstrate competency levels that are sub average, serve the military for 3 or more years, and complete a thorough mental and physical examination.

For all handicapped people whether physical or mental, we will have homes setup specifically for you. You will be grouped together based on your ailments.

All current prisoners who have 30 years to a life in prison will be extradited to undisclosed islands where they will left with little supplies and have to form their own civilization.

Religion will be required and Church will be offered for all. The church will need a signet/crest of the Government.

Lastly, all dreams will be monitored. All data we collect from you from all of the above, will be confidential and only visible to highest of Governmental personal. Thank you, and have a good day.



-------

This sounds a little like Fahrenheit 451. Though let me ask you, for the "non" conspiracy theorists, how much have you gone out on a limb and tried to dig about historical events about your country's governmental control.

For the Americans in the Forum, let me ask you. Do you know where your tax money goes? Do you know where your offertory money goes on Sundays? Do you know where your charity money goes?

More importantly do you believe that absolutely without a doubt, none of this could be a reality?

For now, I'm going to leave it at that.

Do you think your Country's future is bleak? Do you believe there is "too" much Government? Do you believe there is not enough Government?

Let's hear it..

 

[Rapture]

For the Americans in the Forum, let me ask you. Do you know where your tax money goes? $700,000.00 here:

2 million here: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...rs-money-on-coffee-pastries-foundation-finds/
$760,000.00 here:

An undisclosed amount here:

Robo squirrels:

Etc, etc, etc...

Do you know where your offertory money goes on Sundays? To fund our food pantry, the homeless shelter in our city, our after school homework program, building maintenance, church staff wages, and many other community benefited programs.

Do you know where your charity money goes? I don't give any money to charity because I know where my money goes when I give it to my church.

Am I happy with the current state of our government? . Wasteful spending, neglect of the poor, stealing of our invested social security funds, government funded bailouts with no care to where our money is going or how they think it's going to "fix" something, continuing needless involvement in other country's affairs (playing the world police), and with this recent leak of info on what the NSA has really been up to has led me to disgust and detest our government.

Do I see it changing? No. Do I see it getting worse? Yes. Unfortunately getting angry about it really doesn't fix anything and I try not to think about it any too much since it is what it is. The problem is the government doesn't realize there is a problem with the current state of things and there is a different set of standards for the average citizen as opposed to government officials. The whole privacy issue was a huge thing because any average citizen would be nailed and jailed for what the NSA did, but because it was the government that did it it's a matter of "national security" and not an invasion of privacy. They are above the law.

I think our future is pretty bleak

 

[Captain Squee]

The main problem is that when our government was doing good it was because it was considered an honor to be a part of the government. You did it for the people, and you liked it! But then, one fateful year, someone gets into office with a different motive. He decides to make it a career choice instead of a service. This pretty much turned everything to shit since other people realized the same thing. What we need is a complete overhaul, I feel. Everyone needs to be taken out and we all need to put new people in. Negative campaigning is helping nobody if everyone is doing the same thing anyway, so that needs to stop too. Stop telling us what the other guy is doing wrong and start telling us the things that you would do right. If they jsut did this then we could watch them and when they don't do anything we asked, we don't let them in next year.

I wouldn't be surprised if in my lifetime I witnessed a massive revolution. I'd probably even take part in it, actually. I'd take up arms for the greater good.

 

[Ayumi Hamasaki]

The truth is that anytime people are in control you run the chance of that being taken advantage of. Governments are by nature meant to control people, and the easiest way to control people is to control information. Hell even most conspiracy theories fall into a larger picture, and are kept busy with contemplating the same ole same ole. Information is a valuable thing to anyone and everyone, so it's very possible that the government could and does mandate what we can have and what we can't. The mainstream media is a perfect example of this. The news stories that are deemed as "important" are blown up and replayed, while anything that falls outside the definition of that is quickly and quietly wiped off the map.

Even talk of a revolution is hyped up by the media, and everyone buys into it, instead of changing things slowly, the way it actually works, people talk about overthrowing everything, as if that's a solution. If there was a revolution, how would healthcare work? How would all the people who live on disability or who draw unemployment, or get social security factor in? Who's going to pay for this? Provide the weapons? It's not as simple as people want to think it is, we want to buy into a quick fix, or at least dream of one, and it's funny because it doesn't exist.

So if you believe that the future is heading that way, what will you do to change it? Nothing more than likely.

 

[Ultimaja]

America's future is bleak, and Ima tell you why.

First off, Brits can just go on; this is not for you, you enjoy parliament and banning arms and all that other shit.

America is being ran into the dirt because her former stance- rebelling against England and the world order- is becoming commensurate (by bias) to unruliness.
Has history taught us nothing?
Turn in your guns, enjoy a golden era like England.
Then watch what happens.

Yall ever seen V for Vendetta?
Goddamn.
Wake up!

Of course, we don't know it because we are the new generation, but there was a time when the police used to be a pleasantry- you looked foward to running into a good servant and protector.
But what have they become?
They are new age Gestapos, if not to suppose you should join their order and worldview, or you are going to jail.

That is why America is screwed- there is no coming back_
Therefore, be ready for one of two things: conformity or destruction

 

[AuronX]

As an American (or more correctly, a United States-ian), I have to say that the USA was doomed to begin with and is simply showing signs of its age, now. The founding fathers of this country got a lot of things right, but there's one rather big thing they all apparently missed: the idea of a Christian nation is itself non-biblical. So the country was founded on the idea of breaking the system of its very own foundation. The mission of Christian people as stated in the Bible is to spread out into all the other nations (sidenote: not to infiltrate/conquer them, that's the Muslim ideology, not Christian) and instead they were taken out of all other nations and collected into a new one. With their central mission sabotaged, it was only a matter of time before Christian people in the USA lost sight of the rest of their beliefs over a relatively few generations. Then came the 1960s and the USA decided it was done with God entirely, and started the process of removing him from the government, the schools--everything. So now we don't even have the flawed foundation we started out with--we just don't have a foundation. The country has no moral compass, no purpose for living, no goals for the future. With a system like that, education has died too. We don't even have money anymore--it's just virtual numbers with nothing to back them up. It stands on popularity alone, and that popularity is quickly fading. Other world powers are rising in its place. As soon as the USA isn't deemed necessary to a host of other countries, it will cease to exist.

 

[Ultimaja]

As an American (or more correctly, a United States-ian), I have to say that the USA was doomed to begin with and is simply showing signs of its age, now. The founding fathers of this country got a lot of things right, but there's one rather big thing they all apparently missed: the idea of a Christian nation is itself non-biblical. So the country was founded on the idea of breaking the system of its very own foundation. The mission of Christian people as stated in the Bible is to spread out into all the other nations (sidenote: not to infiltrate/conquer them, that's the Muslim ideology, not Christian) and instead they were taken out of all other nations and collected into a new one. With their central mission sabotaged, it was only a matter of time before Christian people in the USA lost sight of the rest of their beliefs over a relatively few generations. Then came the 1960s and the USA decided it was done with God entirely, and started the process of removing him from the government, the schools--everything. So now we don't even have the flawed foundation we started out with--we just don't have a foundation. The country has no moral compass, no purpose for living, no goals for the future. With a system like that, education has died too. We don't even have money anymore--it's just virtual numbers with nothing to back them up. It stands on popularity alone, and that popularity is quickly fading. Other world powers are rising in its place. As soon as the USA isn't deemed necessary to a host of other countries, it will cease to exist.

Alright, I was pretty plastered when I made this post, and don't feel that I made a particularly relevant and thorough argument.
So I'm starting over lol.

There's two different forms of Christianity- there's Protestantism and Catholicism.

Catholicism dictates that there is a God intended world order, in which you have laymen at the bottom, the kings in the middle, the church papacy near the top, and ultimately God above all.

This is was the way of the West through pretty much the entire Early, Middle, and Late Ages.
It wasn't really until Protestantism was founded in the 16th Century and the seeds of America being planted that this really changed.
That being said, America became a predominantly Protestant establishment, which does not have the traditional ordinances of society in it's structure like Catholicism had.

But it's not just America, but the whole west really, save Rome, which is losing sight of it's historical religion. We've entered a vast liberal age where Christian beliefs are either altered by modern believers or even outright condemned by non-believers. The notions of homosexuality is a very good and obvious example.

However, where America might resemble a hypocrisy, the UK has simply changed the definition of hypocrisy to being anti-liberal, and that is threatening to the very principles of social virtue.
If America is falling, it is because it has bought into a world order doomed to fail.

 

[Dragon Mage]

Combined with the truly atrocious handling of the government funds (social security, Obamacare, etc.) and the gleeful exportation of jobs by our own politicians in exchange for kickbacks, I say America has about 40 years left. After that, I fully expect states to start ceding from the union. America's problem is that it does indeed have too much government.

Now this may be difficult for Europeans to believe -- I can already hear the scoffing. But let me make something clear.

Europe is small.

America is big.

Therein lies the difference.

I don't mean in terms of power or money or people. I mean in sheer size America is fucking MASSIVE. We have states that are bigger than most countries in Europe! What some call the European Union is what Americans call 'federal government.' That is why social-aligned governments actually have a chance of success in Europe -- the scale is so much smaller, the variables less diverse. There are no deserts AND alpine AND marshland AND mountains AND plains in, say, Ireland, to give you a sense of scope. The monitoring and fact-checking is so much easier over there that you can somewhat keep the system honest. The challenges for government are much smaller in scale, both in geography and the sheer amount of people it must address. Europe is, in a word, consolidated. Over here, it's much, much too big to keep things as honest as European governments can, and that's why people exploit welfare for generations.

America MUST have a smaller federal government -- that was the point. It had to be loose and flexible and apply itself to only general things like infrastructure and cross-state commerce and imports/exports and safety regulations. It was meant to uphold only the universal things that are mundane but necessary. Otherwise, if it gets too big, it'll do what it's doing now, and be crushed under its own weight. It's taking something meant to be a general governing body and making it a micromanaging governing body -- a task that is SUPPOSED to be attended to by individual state government. What we have going on now is like a Roman senator deciding what people should have and eat in China AND India AND Africa. There's just too much of a gap. 1 government cannot be the end-all and be-all for what is essentially 50 different countries. Like I said, that's why we have LOCAL (state) government to do all the micromanaging and a loose, flexible, overarching government (federal) to keep all 50 countries running together smoothly.

Trying to make the federal government do that AND be micromanaging is doomed to failure -- which its doing.

So yes, my country will die sometime in my life I think. Until that happens, I don't believe I will ever have a full-time job or live in a house or even be able to afford a half-way decent apartment. I will have no healthcare (I make too much to be eligible for Obamacare and I make too little to afford the cost of private healthcare which literally skyrocketed when Obamacare went through) unless I get hit by a bus, then it's okay to save me -- as long as I can pay the bills afterward. I will probably have no pension or 401(k) and be constantly living from paycheck to paycheck. Kids? Forget about them, I wouldn't be able to afford them and besides, who'd want kids when you know they won't have a hope in hell of having a better life than you? Oh, and while I'm working so hard to keep the heat on, more and more of my money will be taken to feed and clothe and provide 52" HDTV's for the disabled and sick and homeless, who all live so comfortably without having to worry about bills that they turn the heat on to 80 degrees in the winter and open the windows to keep cool.

And man, I do wish I was making ANY of that up. Or even exaggerating. There's this place called Detroit that's a great example of how welfare riders are fucking up everything. People that are perfectly healthy and capable, mind you; they merely don't want to work.

Here's a fact straight from the Homeland Security (which is related to the FBI) where my aunt works as a department chief. So yeah, this is good info: 21 million people in America pay their taxes.

And those taxes are used to support the other roughly 270 million people living on welfare. That's the system. That's how it works.

That's why America is already dead. We just don't know it yet.

 

[CassinoChips]

270 million people don't "live on welfare." That's asinine and disingenuous. And you're not accounting for about 25 million people in your numbers. But ignoring the basic lack of math, youImeanyour hypothetical aunt is completely statistically incorrect. Even Mitt Romney disagrees with her. Remember his 47% comment? I know her math skills aren't great, but I'm pretty sure 21 million is not 53% of the American population.

 

[Harlequin]

Now this may be difficult for Europeans to believe -- I can already hear the scoffing. But let me make something clear.

Europe is small.

America is big.

Therein lies the difference.

I don't mean in terms of power or money or people. I mean in sheer size America is fucking MASSIVE. We have states that are bigger than most countries in Europe! What some call the European Union is what Americans call 'federal government.' That is why social-aligned governments actually have a chance of success in Europe -- the scale is so much smaller, the variables less diverse. There are no deserts AND alpine AND marshland AND mountains AND plains in, say, Ireland, to give you a sense of scope.

Europe isn't small. Small is Japan. The European Union is about 45% the size of the US. In terms of size the US minus Alaska is comparable to Australia, which only has 23 million inhabitants and an enormous outback - they seem to have a decent welfare.

The challenges for government are much smaller in scale, both in geography and the sheer amount of people it must address.

There are over 500 million people living the the EU, compared to 310 million in the USA.

 

[Saints&Storms]

Nothing much to say about this subject (its something I already believe is occurring, so there's no debate about that for me), other than the tax waste question -- yeah, for the most part I believe I do know, wasteful government funded programs, ridiculously unneeded militarization of the police force, subsidies for grossly over-payed government officials, used up so the the House and Senate can argue like children voting on bills for no real progress to be seen, unneeded foreign-aid, (to china, or anyone else, you name it) warplane boondoggles, prison systems that end in no sort of progress for inmates whats-so-ever, government run healthcare and its mistakes, and a bunch of other crap I cant think of at the moment.
Lady POTUS, pretty much stated how I feel on every thing else here. And about whether I think the US is doomed, it's still going down the road, so, guess we'll have to wait to find the out come, but if shit is done about it before-hand, it can be avoided, in my honest opinion. It's not looking good though that's for sure.

 

[Dragon Mage]

270 million people don't "live on welfare." That's asinine and disingenuous. And you're not accounting for about 25 million people in your numbers. But ignoring the basic lack of math, youImeanyour hypothetical aunt is completely statistically incorrect. Even Mitt Romney disagrees with her. Remember his 47% comment? I know her math skills aren't great, but I'm pretty sure 21 million is not 53% of the American population.

Oh Jesus have mercy, I plea.

You again?

*sigh*

Hypothetical aunt. She does exist. She quoted statistics as reported in USA Today. Remember, Google is your friend. You can haz research.

And here's a news flash. 47% is actually fairly accurate. In terms of political parties, America is fairly evenly split. About 47% votes hard-core one way and about 47% votes hard-core the other way. Ticket voters. That's why campaigning is so important, to sway the last 6% of swing voters. I wouldn't expect you to understand this shit because everyone loves to accuse running politicians for the slightest excuse instead of actually examining their claims, so hey, jumping on the bandwagon is good. Probably a little crowded but good. I'm not judging.

Hey, when did this become a debate thread? I mean, our we like attacking each other now and counter-quoting? Is this a fight? Are we fighting now? I thought this was a sound-off thread only. Or is it that you just can't leave me alone, CC? I mean, I want to be clear here, you see. No mistaking, no miscommunication, I want to be sure where this is going. Is this a fight now or what?

Europe isn't small. Small is Japan. The European Union is about 45% the size of the US. In terms of size the US minus Alaska is comparable to Australia, which only has 23 million inhabitants and an enormous outback - they seem to have a decent welfare.

Compared to Amercia, Europe is still small.

And you don't seem to comprehend the level of abuse. The welfare system is being abused, badly. I know for a fact that there's LOTS of people with 8 ID's and they're collecting welfare on all of them. I know this because it was in the news. (Reported out of Detroit, fyi.) 23 million is still capable of running a viable welfare system because it's still all ONE system. We've got easily 51 systems that you can exploit and that means there's lots of holes and loops that abusers that just fall through the cracks. Basically: Europe can monitor and stop abuse FAR more effectively than America can. It's literally just a flaw of bureaucracy that you cannot escape -- the more layers you have to go through, the more shuffle there is, the more hectic it is, the easier it is to game the system.

Also, America's welfare system was NOT constructed on a viable plan. With the baby boomers, it was figured, oh hey, we got all these people, the slice from their collective wages will be more than enough to pay for all these other folks?

And that DID work for a while! Just fine!

But now that the baby boomers are retiring and overall birth rates are starting to get outstripped by death rates.... basically, there's not as many people taking the slack up anymore, while a heavier demand is being put on the system. Which, when combined with the abuse of the system, means the system can no longer support itself. But people are relying on it so the system HAS to work! The money MUST be there!

And that's a fair sized reason why we're so badly in debt. The social security fund was also used for a lot of things OTHER than social security because the government just couldn't keep its hands out of it. I don't now how it works over there, but I'm guessing it works with a LOT more responsibility than ours because it seems to be doing fairly well. Also, the system in Europe was built from the ground up with this kind of support in mind -- that extra structure does a LOT to making it work a lot better and a lot easier (though, we know, it isn't perfect, but what is?). Whereas in America, the system was NOT set up from the start with this kind of support in mind, and therefore it doesn't get the same kind of... stability. Which is essential to it working.

There are over 500 million people living the the EU, compared to 310 million in the USA.

Again, you missed my point.

500 million in the EU, sure, but that isn't all in one spot. That's split up amongst many individual countries, each with a government that is unique and tuned to their specific needs.

The US federal government is basically trying to be as big as the EU but have the fine-tuning of each country's individual government, but in this case applied to each state. And obviously I don't need to tell you why that's just a bad idea that will never work.

The EU is what the federal government should be like -- loose, flexible, general-law only. Just makes sure things run together smoothly. But it isn't, by any means, a singular ruling body that dictates the zoning from Norway to Italy. That's obviously left to the country's government to sort out.

So, you see now why I see USA crashing and burning? It's being weighed down with too many programs that are VERY easy to abuse, are VERY expensive, and there was no long-term planning to support any of it. I mean, hell, with that kind of a screw up, it's amazing it hasn't happened before now.

 

[Harlequin]

Compared to Amercia, Europe is still small.

You didn't provide dimensions so its simply a matter of perspective. The European Union is smaller than the USA correct, but you hadn't made the comparison, you didn't say "smaller" you said "small" - perhaps to deride Europeans?

Am I being pedantic with your choice of words? Yeah I am. But the following quote of yours is tellingly provocative isn't it?

Now this may be difficult for Europeans to believe -- I can already hear the scoffing. But let me make something clear.

Europe is small.

America is big.

The combined size of all the member countries would make the EU the seventh largest territory in the world - I'm sure you'd agree the word "small" is hardly a clarifying adjective to use.

Now the entire continent of Europe? Bigger than the US, if only just.

And you don't seem to comprehend the level of abuse. The welfare system is being abused, badly. I know for a fact that there's LOTS of people with 8 ID's and they're collecting welfare on all of them. I know this because it was in the news. (Reported out of Detroit, fyi.) 23 million is still capable of running a viable welfare system because it's still all ONE system. We've got easily 51 systems that you can exploit and that means there's lots of holes and loops that abusers that just fall through the cracks. Basically: Europe can monitor and stop abuse FAR more effectively than America can. It's literally just a flaw of bureaucracy that you cannot escape -- the more layers you have to go through, the more shuffle there is, the more hectic it is, the easier it is to game the system.

The news doesn't always report the truth. You can't know something because it was reported in the news.

Welfare gets abused everywhere. Europe has its fair share of financial abusers - whole countries have abused the economic prosperity of the richer member countries. Greece lied about it's finances!

Again, you missed my point.

500 million in the EU, sure, but that isn't all in one spot. That's split up amongst many individual countries, each with a government that is unique and tuned to their specific needs.

You said the challenges for EU government are smaller in scale both in geography and "sheer amount of people". Higher population density? Yes. Smaller populace? No.

 

[Dragon Mage]

You didn't provide dimensions so its simply a matter of perspective. The European Union is smaller than the USA correct, but you hadn't made the comparison, you didn't say "smaller" you said "small" - perhaps to deride Europeans?

Am I being pedantic with your choice of words? Yeah I am. But the following quote of yours is tellingly provocative isn't it?

The combined size of all the member countries would make the EU the seventh largest territory in the world - I'm sure you'd agree the word "small" is hardly a clarifying adjective to use.

Now the entire continent of Europe? Bigger than the US, if only just.

Yeah, okay, you're looking to be insulted here. I'm not insulting. I'm providing perspective. Tellingly provocative, I don't even know where you got that but let me disabuse this misconception right now: I'm not insulting Europe, I'm not belittling or degrading or being patronizing whatsoever. That is definitely NOT my intent. I mean come on, we're all just folk here trying to get by, why would I even want to insult Europeans? o_0 I mean, what did Europe ever do to the USA to warrant me talking smack?

Just a misunderstanding here -- I didn't even think that calling Europe 'small' would be misconstrued as belittling. You have a point there and I apologize for that, I literally didn't even cross my mind. I was just trying to provide perspective in the most simple and expressive way possible.

But yes, you're correct, it would've been more accurate for me to say 'smaller'. Therefore, I stand corrected.

But let me direct you to two things that may be of interest to my point:

1. The area of the United States (including Alaska and Hawaii) is 9,161,923 km2, while the area of Europe is 3,788,027 km2. The United States is almost two and a half times the size of the European Union. France is slightly smaller than the state of Texas.

So no. The entire continent of Europe is NOT bigger than the USA. The numbers are right there, how could I make this up?

2. Please, read this one page: http://francistapon.com/Travels/Western-Europe/Defending-American-Ignorance It very accurately describes the gap in knowledge between continents, how it happens, and why.

But I'd like to quote a paragraph from it if you don't want to read it:

Another common criticism about Americans is that we don’t travel internationally. Again, scale distorts everything. A Hungarian feels well traveled because he’s been to 10 countries. However, most of them are probably near Hungary. If someone from Iowa logs the same miles as the Hungarian, she won’t even leave America. At best, she’ll have visited Mexico, Canada, or the Caribbean, which is what many Americans do. In other words, the Iowan might feel well traveled if he’s been to 10 US states. Each state in America is about the size of a European country: Germany is the size of Montana, Poland is the size of New Mexico, Slovenia is the size of New Jersey, Belarus is the size of Kansas, and Greece is the size of Alabama.

So yeah. When I said that 'each state is like it's own country' I wasn't exaggerating.

You said the challenges for EU government are smaller in scale both in geography and "sheer amount of people". Higher population density? Yes. Smaller populace? No.

Okay, you're still not getting it.

310 million people in the US. In ONE COUNTRY. EU has 500 million people in MULTIPLE COUNTRIES.

And hell, I'm just citing the legal citizens. We only get 3 million illegal immigrants per year. The actual US population is anyone's guess.

Until you get ONE country that has the same population as the US, you're still not going to fully grasp sheer mass of humanity the federal government must deal with spread out over a huge area.

And also, you seemed to not quite grasp my meaning. The EU doesn't have as much challenges because yes, it's smaller which means less special needs due to geographical variance it must be concerned with. Also, and this is the important difference, the EU DOES IT'S FREAKING JOB RIGHT. It doesn't micromanage. It doesn't get involved in minority issues across the continent. It does it's damn job which is to let the individual countries to deal with. Which is why the challenges for the EU are indeed smaller, because the issues have already been compartmentalized -- it lets the system work the way it SHOULD.

The EU, basically, doesn't screw around with as much bureaucracy. Countries have their welfare systems that was well-planned for and their governments written to make sure it stays supported, and so everything works really orderly. USA, our welfare programs were never meant to be permanent, and so we have multiple programs to cover different groups of needs and some of them are federal and some of them are state and sometimes the eligibility can overlap for multiple programs and these programs don't share databases or they are very old databases, so it's easy for a person to apply to several and get welfare checks....

You get my drift. This is why a social system like Europe has won't work in the US. In Europe, it's all been accounted for, it's all streamlined, it's been there from the start. In the US -- we're just adding and patching programs that were always meant to be temporary. Europe has good freaking planning, in other words. It also goes country-by-country over there. Spain, for (a fictional) example, doesn't make as much as Germany. It's welfare program takes that into account. Fine-tuning, like I said. US, doesn't have that kind of freaking common sense. Instead of state-by-state, welfare taxes are federal first, state second. Yes, that's correct -- you guys pay taxes for welfare once. We pay twice, at least. Township or city taxes also take affect. And don't even get me started on income tax -- trust funds recently became taxable.

In fact, Europe has a higher population density than the US, if memory serves. Most of Europe is, like I said, consolidated. Again I'm not insulting or saying one is better than the other here -- I'm just trying to show the essential differences here, and why those differences matter so much. I'm not some arrogant, self-righteous American saying that we're better than 'all you people' I'm just saying that the US and Europe have very essential differences and because of those, we each require different governing methods. Simple, common sense stuff.

Being consolidated is a very good thing for the system and governing that Europe has. It's tuned to the needs of that region and that's what makes it work so well! Even though Europe is beginning to get a little of the problem that America is (what I said about all the baby boomers retiring at once, and not enough people stepping in to pay into the system to support a big wave of retirees) it still isn't nearly as bad as what we've got going on because, like I said, European countries can were 1. built from the ground up to support the system and 2. are a lot more freaking responsible with their stored funds. (Usually. There's always hiccups, but you get what I mean.)

Each state is, in essence, it's own little country and it functions like one. Due to the sheer size of the US, it was quickly realized that laws that benefit New York will not necessarily do good for Montana. There's simply too much variance. So our state government works -- for terms of comparison -- like each countries government in Europe. It's localized to an area (albeit a very BIG area) and makes laws and rulings with that area's needs in consideration.

For example, a law about let's say, wool blankets in Norway wouldn't really apply to the folks in Italy. (this is just a random general example that I'm making up.) So the EU doesn't make those laws, the countries do.

Just so with the USA. The federal government sees to the necessary things like infrastructure, safety regulations, defense and education, while the states are left to do all the micromanaging. That's what we're called the United States. Not 'America'. We are a UNION of STATES. These states do NOT function as one in all things all across the board -- and that's okay. They don't have to agree on everything, just work together, and the federal government is to oversee that.

At least, it's supposed to. But now, it's actually picking and choosing what issues are 'federal' matters and what are 'state' matters. It's a breach of the freaking Constitution really. Allow me to clarify.

A few days ago, my state (Michigan) just verified that affirmative action is illegal. A.A. is, in essence, discrimination against the majority. The idea was if 2 people applied for the same job, and one person was black and the other was white, the employer must hire the black person because they are a minority. It was to offset discriminatory preference in employment.

And YET.... it's discrimination still. People are not judged by their merit or worth, but by their skin color. Discrimination, yes, but it's "okay" because it's the majority getting the shaft. And people got sick of it and they voted it out in 2006. My state said, "Screw this, it's illegal. Get rid of it." And so we did.

Drive over a few state lines, and you'll find a state that still has affirmative action. But hey, that's their prerogative to have it. I don't care, not my state. That's what the voters wanted there, and so they get it. And the federal government didn't get involved because that's a state thing, let the state handle it.

BUT, a month ago, gay marriage was turned down in Michigan. And now the federal government is starting to get involved and the situation has been kicked up to the Supreme Court.

WHAT. THE. HELL.

Gay marriage, like affirmative action, is supposed to be a state-by-state thing. So why in the hell is the federal government trying to overturn the voter's decision?

The answer: Because the federal government is getting too damn big for its britches. It's becoming the champion of causes and enforcing them whether or not the people in a state want it. The day Obamacare was passed? 38 states sued the federal government because it was forcing something on them that their people didn't want. Those states that WANT Obamacare? Well, they can have it. No problem. Those people want it, they can install it, make it work -- that's their right.

But why should something that people in, say, Vermont, affect every other state in the union?

It shouldn't. But it is, because the government is getting too damn big and pushy and not respecting state rights.

The news doesn't always report the truth. You can't know something because it was reported in the news.

Welfare gets abused everywhere. Europe has its fair share of financial abusers - whole countries have abused the economic prosperity of the richer member countries. Greece lied about it's finances!

Well by logic, all reporting is false and we should doubt everything we ever hear from any source of information unless we saw it with our own eyes.



It isn't just reported in the news, it's reported everywhere. USA Today, Newsweek, Time, I can go on. My point is, it isn't like it's a secret. We KNOW the welfare system is being abused by perfectly healthy people collecting 8 paychecks with false ID's. Hell, BBC even put a man undercover with a watch-cam to expose a prostitution ring. How to get this by the government? List all the prostitutes as dependents. The guy even told the reporter WHERE to go, WHO to talk to, and what time the office would be open.

It's happening, we know about it and yet nothing is being done about it.

Yes, welfare gets abused everywhere, but usually not to the point that it threatens the very stability of an entire nation. If we know about this, why don't we do anything about it?

Easy answer.

1. Stopping this abuse would mean hiring people to go out there and verify eligibility. This probably means creating ANOTHER program/bureau and that means money. And hiring the people means more money. And guess what America just doesn't have?

2. Government jobs pay shitty unless you are a politician. Bribes and corruption is actually very, very common. It ran Detroit into the ground, damn near literally.

3. The welfare abusers are also voters. They will vote for anyone that keeps them flush. Politicians get a LOT of money from their voters and interested parties. So they make sure the welfare abusers can keep abusing so they will get their votes and stay in office and get stupidly rich. Corruption, in a nutshell. There's no secret about it, it isn't like its a conspiracy. We know it's all happening. But the politicians say they doing the good thing! They are champions of righteous causes! They are helping the poor and homeless and those who can't afford healthcare, and now we are a welfare nation.

And the result of all this? America gets poorer and poorer. Companies can't afford to operate in the states anymore because union workers get paid more than the college-educated engineers (see Ford and GM for an example.) So jobs get shipped out or companies shut down. America turns to a consumer nation using borrowed money. When all that borrowed money is needed and doesn't show up, you get stock market collapses. More companies break, more jobs gone. More people rely on welfare and more politicians get into power to ensure their welfare voters are comfortable. Where it once was the American way to make a small business, it's now nearly IMPOSSIBLE for a small business to conform to the same regulations as major corporations. $40,000 for a restaurant to get access to water. Another $10,000 for gas, and another $10,000 for electricity. That's $60,000 just to get the necessary hook-ups to run the whole operation and the thing isn't even open yet!

(These numbers were taken from a report in my local newspaper regarding a Big Boy's that was opening in town. That Big Boy's has now gone out of business.)

It is a vicious cycle. The states aren't allowed to do their own governing anymore. The federal government is threaded with corruption that does nothing to solve the problem but only exacerbate it.

And that is why, in my opinion, America will crash and burn while the EU -- which allows its countries their autonomy -- will continue on for a long time to come. It's in a rough patch now, but it isn't fatal. For the USA, it is.



I honestly don't know why you're taking such gumption with what I'm saying. I'm complimenting Europe and Europeans. Even though you guys no doubt have the same problems we do, it isn't running and ruining your countries. But the USA -- which was freaking built to prevent this problem from happening -- is being ruined by it.

 

[Harlequin]

Yeah, okay, you're looking to be insulted here. I'm not insulting. I'm providing perspective. Tellingly provocative, I don't even know where you got that but let me disabuse this misconception right now: I'm not insulting Europe, I'm not belittling or degrading or being patronizing whatsoever. That is definitely NOT my intent. I mean come on, we're all just folk here trying to get by, why would I even want to insult Europeans? o_0 I mean, what did Europe ever do to the USA to warrant me talking smack?

Just a misunderstanding here -- I didn't even think that calling Europe 'small' would be misconstrued as belittling. You have a point there and I apologize for that, I literally didn't even cross my mind. I was just trying to provide perspective in the most simple and expressive way possible.

But yes, you're correct, it would've been more accurate for me to say 'smaller'. Therefore, I stand corrected.

"Now this may be difficult for Europeans to believe - I can already hear the scoffing"

Why would it be difficult to believe if the figures were accurate? Why would they scoff if it were true? Its not about point scoring, its about accurately conveying the information. You may have not meant for it to be belittling but your choice of words suggest otherwise.

But let me direct you to two things that may be of interest to my point:

1. The area of the United States (including Alaska and Hawaii) is 9,161,923 km2, while the area of Europe is 3,788,027 km2. The United States is almost two and a half times the size of the European Union. France is slightly smaller than the state of Texas.

So no. The entire continent of Europe is NOT bigger than the USA. The numbers are right there, how could I make this up?

2. Please, read this one page: http://francistapon.com/Travels/Western-Europe/Defending-American-Ignorance It very accurately describes the gap in knowledge between continents, how it happens, and why.

Using your figures, Europe is 41.3% the size of the US.

This is the "entire continent of Europe" that stretches from Portugal, past the Black Sea and Moscow all the way to Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan?

3,788,027 km2? I doubt it.

With regards to the article, I'd agree with some of the points made but some of it is just apologetic garbage. Being far away from a country is no excuse for a lack of knowledge. You don't need to be living in Ethiopia to know where Somalia is nor do you need to live in the Netherlands to find out where Belgium is. If the culture is insular its reflected in the people.

European government isn't nearly as streamlined as you've suggested. There's 24 official languages spoken in the EU and a wide variety of cultures. Consider that the US actually is one big country, whereas the EU isn't. Germany can't dictate to Italy what it spends its money on, but they share a currency meaning if Italy drags it's heels Germany will have to pick up the slack.

Well by logic, all reporting is false and we should doubt everything we ever hear from any source of information unless we saw it with our own eyes.

You've jumped from one extremity to the other. That you can take whatever the news reports as fact to nothing in the news is true.

 

[Dragon Mage]

"Now this may be difficult for Europeans to believe - I can already hear the scoffing"

Why would it be difficult to believe if the figures were accurate? Why would they scoff if it were true? Its not about point scoring, its about accurately conveying the information. You may have not meant for it to be belittling but your choice of words suggest otherwise.

Why do I think it would be difficult for you to believe?

Because never, in my experience or the experience of several friends and family members, has a European truly understood the difference that size can make, and if they do, they never appreciate how truly huge America is.

My godmother had a second cousin who lived in Norway, I think it was. This cousin was going to visit America and get in touch with distant family. He said he would land in New York around 2 or 3pm, experience the big city for a while, then drive over to where my godmother lives in Muskegon, Michigan by 6pm, in time for dinner.

Now this plan could work -- if cars were capable of driving over miles of water. Michigan is pretty much surrounded by lakes so big, they're considered freshwater inland seas. Barring that, he would have to cut through another country if he hand any hopes of getting there in time.

This is why I said, "I can already hear the scoffing." The size issue isn't really something that can be described purely because in Europe, people are so very used to being able to drive through a whole country in a day. And no matter how hard I or anyone else tries to convey the sheer size difference, it's always treated as being over dramatic or not that important when it actually makes all the difference.

The fact that you are still skeptical that the USA is bigger than the EU just goes to prove my point. You are doing exactly what I predicted -- you're scoffing at what I'm saying. Isn't that a little belittling in its own right?

Using your figures, Europe is 41.3% the size of the US.

This is the "entire continent of Europe" that stretches from Portugal, past the Black Sea and Moscow all the way to Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan?

3,788,027 km2? I doubt it.

And this is why I said it may be hard for some Europeans to believe. I'm not making this up. You wish to have figures? Done.

The European Union's size: 4,381,376 km[SUP]2[/SUP]

The USA's size: 9,826,675 km[SUP]2
[/SUP]
The USA is the 3/4th rank in terms of size. The EU is the 7th.

Visual Aid:

Russia is not a part of the EU. Sorry. And I generally tend to not to think of Russia as part of Europe anyway because, clearly, Russia is an island unto itself in nearly every respect. But hey, you want to count Russia too, okay.

That would make the continent of Europe's size: 10,180,000km^2

So yeah. Even with Russia, you're barely tipping the scale in your favor. And like I said, Russia isn't a part of the EU, which in my mind (and many others) makes it very culturally separate from the rest of Europe. Aggressively so, in fact. Also, for purposes of this discussion, Russia is hugely superfluous -- since we are specifically talking about welfare structure and Russia has no participation in any EU affair, it is outside of the picture. Let's stick strictly to the EU here.

But as I said, even with all that population, it's split into very distinct countries that, while they co-operate, are still autonomous. Thus, if we are speaking BY SIZE OF COUNTRY there is not one European country that is as big as the US. And this has been the distinction I've been making all along.

With regards to the article, I'd agree with some of the points made but some of it is just apologetic garbage. Being far away from a country is no excuse for a lack of knowledge. You don't need to be living in Ethiopia to know where Somalia is nor do you need to live in the Netherlands to find out where Belgium is. If the culture is insular its reflected in the people.

Apologetic garbage? I must disagree! It's actually very succinct. We like to think the internet has made the world so much more accessible and globalized, but it hasn't done all that much.

Being far away from a country makes a world of difference that you just can't even know. And who in the hell has a perfect map of the world in their heads? Very, very few people. Humans are -- and this has been proven for a very long time -- most knowledgeable and concerned about the area the live in and adjacent areas.

Most of the difference in understanding that article was talking about largely comes down to local common knowledge. I wouldn't expect you to know anything about the UAW because it doesn't affect you. It isn't near you or even in a country close to you. It's so far away and such a specific part of the local flavor I wouldn't expect you to know what it is. But over here, knowing who and what the UAW is, is common knowledge. Years ago, it was pretty much folks' way of life in my state.

It really isn't all that outlandish to think that 'an ocean away makes all the difference.' It does. Some of it's big things, like politics or things that are just so much a unique part of your area you don't even realize the impact it has. Some of it's small things, like beverages at restaurants or the fact that blue jeans aren't nearly as common over there as they are here. These differences compound each other and produce something wildly different from the other. Don't be harsh or criticizing because people simply don't know or are concerned about things you find so obvious -- by and by, people are only ever concerned with their 'territory' and everything else is just accumulated knowledge. It isn't being insular -- it's just being human.

Go look up 'psychological geography' to get a better grasp of what I mean. We covered this extensively in my geography and sociology class and you'd be amazed at how limited people's focus can be. Though I do appreciate the belittling insult about Americans being insular, you may wish to do some research before casting stones.

North Korea is insular. USA, not so much.

European government isn't nearly as streamlined as you've suggested. There's 24 official languages spoken in the EU and a wide variety of cultures. Consider that the US actually is one big country, whereas the EU isn't. Germany can't dictate to Italy what it spends its money on, but they share a currency meaning if Italy drags it's heels Germany will have to pick up the slack.

True, I may be giving the EU more credit than it deserves. But even so, separation can make all the difference.

Okay so you've actually given me a great example here. You say Germany can't dictate to Italy what it spends its money on. Okay, fair enough. That sounds sensible.

In the USA, the federal government does tell states what they can spend their money on! The government gives the state a certain amount of money that must be used for infrastructure or the environment or whatever. So, if I am to continue the analogy, this is like Germany telling Italy what it can spend its money on. Pure and simple.

Do you get what I've been saying now? Do you get the analogy? If not, then I'm going to pass you off to the abstract giraffe.

You've jumped from one extremity to the other. That you can take whatever the news reports as fact to nothing in the news is true.

Gosh, don't you just hate it when folks do that?

Well, all you said was that 'you can't take what the news says as always being true,' purely because, I must assume, that would provide a substantial challenge to your argument and so you dismissed it using the ever-popular poisoning-the-well fallacy, therefore removing my evidence as validation for my position without ever having to actually challenge it.

If we are to follow your statement regarding news accuracyto its fullest extent then, logically, all news sources are suspect and must be dismissed as being potentially untrue.

Therefore, by your own terms, my quoted statement is perfectly true as set by limitations you deemed were acceptable sources of evidence; in this case that means no news sources are acceptable whatsoever, since they could all potentially prove false.

 

[Linnaete]

I don't even know how I would even describe America. It kind of amuses me that things like the alleged widespread abuse of welfare (damn these poor people, how dare they be so entitled and lazy and poor), baby steps towards a more civilised healthcare system, and a laughable assertion that Christians are so endangered, are so widely considered to be the worst threats facing America by white conservatives.

I mean, of course. What kind of hippy do I have to be to think that the genuine threats facing America are its mad politics full of utmost hypocrisy on the Republican side to tribal extremes, the fact that it's become a blatant oligarchy as opposed to a democracy with the rich buying off elected officials and stripping them of whatever slivers of principle they had, the baffling levels of kowtowing in front of big business, the widespread foolhardy belief that tax cuts for the rich and dropping the load on the middle/working class and poor is a viable economic model for success, and the levels of extreme Evangelicalism that's only a few steps away from a full theocracy.

As for Britain, goodness knows where we're heading to.

Come the next election, who do we have to choose from? Posh twat who will continue to do what he's been doing and laud about what a great job he's been doing with the economy while all the capital is funneled and converged onto London's finance sector (we're just asking for another serious banking crisis, aren't we?), leaving the rest of the country anywhere north of Oxford or Milton Keynes the same kind of dried husk, lacking much of an export industry, or any substantial manufacturing for that matter. Germany has managed to become the undisputed powerhouse of Europe for a reason, you know. We're just this irrelevance trying to pretend otherwise.

Who else? Well, we can also vote for Wallace, minus the Gromit (unless it's Ed Balls). Another member of the insulated political elite utterly detached from the rest of the country, despite his cute attempts to pretend otherwise when he tries to mingle with the peasants, and at a time when we need a new paradigmatic way of doing things, I am not betting money on Wallace being the man to deliver.

Then we have Judas Dutch boy, but he's irrelevant. There's also Mr. Beer, whose answer to every single policy detail is to get out of Europe, while peddling free market economics, but thankfully he's even less relevant than Judas Clegg when it comes to electoral spoils.

While I'm not paranoid or daft enough to think that we'll somehow become a police state in the future with numbered identities instead of names and with all our individuality sucked out, I do think we could be staring into another economic abyss soon one day. Well, at least we're unlikely to be a theocracy, no matter what closet fantasies Cameron has of running one.

 

[Linnaete]

and if we ever raise minimum wage, my god do you know how many people will be fired and how many of the remaining people will be overworked for their measly $10 an hour that, thanks to the current economy, will still put them on the 'poverty' line (pay goes up, prices for goods go up--basic economics, people)?

If CEOs are not willing to even give their workers - the ones responsible for making their firms' labour possible - even the most modest wage increase so they can at least bring food to the table and NOT have to constantly run to the aid of food stamps and other welfare means, then I don't know what to say. That is an absolutely loathsome system, perpetuated by men in ties with more money in the bank than they can ever hope to spend in a single lifetime.

If a nation cannot even bring itself to modestly adjust the minimum wage up past the $10 mark, especially taking into account the natural rate of inflation in the last 40-50 years and its egregious effect on purchasing power, and the exorbitant concentration of wealth into the top 1% bracket during that time, that nation ceases to call itself a civilised nation. The Republican Party jettisons the right to call itself an ally to the American people if even a tiny adjustment in the minimum wage gets on their tits, and especially so when so many of them want to abolish the minimum wage.

I've not the time to go through all the material, but reports like this from the people at the Economic Policy Institute seem confident that raising it just past the $10 threshold would increase wages and a GDP boost by $22 billion, while supporting approximately 85,000 net new jobs, with 75 economists backing the Democrats' proposal. Surely then, it would at least help tremendously to reduce poverty and CUT Medicaid, food stamps and welfare reduction (because people can at least sustain themselves), and finally, there's the possible consideration that companies can find relief in the rise of demand and the reduction in turnover of employees.

I don't understand the Republican and libertarian logic of what the (WORKING!) poor are supposed to do in this kind of situation, where the glorious free market has so flagrantly failed them. Starve with their kids or turn to the government as a last resort?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/08/us-religion-christianity-persecution-idUSBRE9070TB20130108

I guess I didn't make that bit clear enough then.

I was on about the ridiculous notion that the supermajority Christians in the United States of America are being persecuted by the evil pagans/satanists/atheists/agnostics/deists/Muslims/whatever lot, not the situation of Christians in certain countries. I had conservative talk show lunatics in mind, from Glenn Beck to Michael fucking Savage, not to mention the extreme pastor types who just sit there spouting hate in the name of Christianity.

The poor, repressed supermajority of Christians in America who still run everything, with even certain unpracticed statutes in law books in certain states forbidding any atheist from running for office. And yet there are still claims that there is a war on Christianity in the States, hatched by an evil group of people who may or may not be led by that well-known Muslim Kenyan Obama seeking to impose sodomy across the country, or something like that.

 

[Donald Trump]

Raising minimum wage isn't a 'fix' it's masking the problem and putting lipstick on a pig. It does more help for the poverty line if we had leaders that knew how to create jobs, bring down prices of materials, and stop taxing them.

It would also be great if our leaders could all get along and feed 5000 with a loaf of bread and a few sardines. However, we live in the real world, where it's difficult to get things done.
Your aims more or less contradict each other. The only way to keep prices down and to create jobs without taxing people, is to deregulate and remove all tariffs and quotas on imports. Which will only have a limited effect and mean that the government has no money, so say goodbye to your roads, your government employees, schools etc. The American right has a very bad, or very selfish understanding of economics. They think that the beneficiaries of a almost totally free-market will compensate the less fortunate. It's an idea that's only slightly less stupid than shooting yourself in the face.
The best way to create jobs is by spending money, and to spend money, you need to have money, or at least the potential ability to pay it back. For governments, that money comes from taxes.

America continually boasts about being the greatest country in the world and yet it has about 50 million people in poverty. Rather than acting like decent fucking human beings and spending some of the trillions spent on defence on the poor, they let the poor starve. You can't care too much about the poor in America, otherwise you're legally declared a socialist.

 

[Linnaete]

You have really downed whole litres of the Ron Paul kool-aid (as you Americans say), haven't you?

Your condemning of "taking" from some and GIVING to others (boy, it's almost like something Jesus would do, but ahh, if only I know what the hell I am talking about ) is essentially you saying taxation is evil, and therefore we should have NO public services. Thus, you assert that we should privatise everything.

Oh, that sounds brilliant. You want all roads to be privatised? Good luck going through at least ten toll booths on the way to work, because someone has to pay the corporations. Yes, there will be others who will move in to take control of the utilities from the government, but they'll be completely profit-driven. I sure would love a scenario where I'm bankrupt as hell, but am assaulted on the street, unable to be helped by police, because obviously I cannot pay them - or at least, I'm indebted to virtually everyone. No, the rich can have a whole army. The rest of us are on our own.

And yes, often the private sector CAN offer a vastly better result and experience than anything in public hands, but it depends on what the industry is. Obviously it works well for commodities like cars and TVs, but not basic utilities like clean water, good sewage systems and certain bodies that make sure we don't consume contaminated food. I don't want the commons to be delivered by firms that work on profit, especially when there is no incentive for them to do X or Y because they don't fatten their pockets and the pockets of shareholders.

Taxation = basic common sense, unless you're offering tax cuts for the rich, and dumping the load on the working and even middle classes. The Right love merely to paint a false dichotomy from this. Most sane people realise that taxation is a necessity. "Taking" from some to give to others is a necessity. It's a cornerstone of a civilised society. Most people understand that overzealous taxation is silly, which is why people ought to be taxed a sensible amount based on their income - unless you're poor (and most poor people are not lazy bastards as Republicans paint them to be), which then you should be exempted - not a ridiculous flat tax. We in Britain tried a form of flat tax once. It was called the community charge, aka the poll tax. Guess what? It contributed immensely to the removal of our dear Friedrich Hayek-worshipping Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher.

Cut your ridiculous defence spending, America. It is absolutely absurd how much you spend on it and where you decide to take swinging cuts to instead. You do things like destabilise Iraq with weak retrospective justifications, and then scratch your head when you take a look at the deficit.