Well, I think this is it for 'merica. v. Ayn Rand discussion on pg. 3

[Perpetual Change]

Let's see where America fits in with the model of every other empire in history:

1.) Government mired in bureaucracy and unable to do anything? Check.
2.) Overstretched, financially burdensome imperialism fraught with military failures? Check.
3.) Populous failing to participate and increasingly falling into unemployment? Check.
4.) Absolute refusal of the wealthy and governing class to allow themselves to be taxed? Check.

I think that about does it. Discuss.

[William Wallace]

"One of these things is not like the others."

Let's see where America fits in with the model of every other empire in history:

1.) Government mired in bureaucracy and unable to do anything? Check.
2.) Overstretched, financially burdensome imperialism fraught with military failures? Check.
3.) Populous failing to participate and increasingly falling into unemployment? Check.
4.) Absolute refusal of the wealthy and governing class to allow themselves to be taxed? Check.

I think that about does it. Discuss.

I don't understand how anybody can think that too little taxation is one America's empire ending faults.

[Perpetual Change]

I don't understand how anybody can think that too little taxation is one America's empire ending faults.

As opposed to what? Spending money that isn't taxed? If your against the spending, that's fine with me. But that seems to be irrelevant to this point. I think we should be able to agree that government spending when the government has the capacity to raise money is better than government spending when the government has none.

It's the ending fault of many empires. When the governing class unanimously decides they want to spread their values to heathen lands and, 10 years later, the heathen lands are still heathen lands and no-one is willing to chip-in towards the massive debt and bankruptcy accrued over the duration of the dilemma, I'd say that's a sign that things just don't work anymore.

[William Wallace]

I don't understand how anybody can think that too little taxation is one America's empire ending faults.

As opposed to what? Spending money that isn't taxed? If your against the spending, that's fine with me. But that seems to be irrelevant to this point. I think we should be able to agree that government spending when the government has the capacity to raise money is better than government spending when the government has none.

The problem isn't that we're unwilling to pay for everything; the problem is that we constantly increase the amount we spend (new entitlements, new wars, etc.) Thus, it's impossible to keep pace with our growing expenditures. We'd destroy the domestic economy before even getting close to paying for everything. The government keeps filling its coffers, spending them empty, and the root of the problem is never addressed.

It's the ending fault of many empires. When the governing class unanimously decides they want to spread their values to heathen lands and, 10 years later, the heathen lands are still heathen lands and no-one is willing to chip-in towards the massive debt and bankruptcy accrued over the duration of the dilemma, I'd say that's a sign that things just don't work anymore.

Value spreading in this context is indeed a shitty cause. But, again, the cause is the problem, not the unwillingness to pay for it.

[Perpetual Change]

If the cause is the problem, the unwillingness to pay for it makes it even more disastrous.

[William Wallace]

If the cause is the problem, the unwillingness to pay for it makes it even more disastrous.

That seems a little disingenuous.

[Perpetual Change]

I know you don't want to admit that taxing could ever, under any circumstances, make more sense that not-taxing, but since spending money we don't have (aka, haven't raised) is at the very core of the "problem" and you've voiced this several times on these forums I'm going to assume you're just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing.  

At any rate, this is a good example of how complex issues force us to look at things on multiple levels. Simply "not spending anymore" from here on out isn't going to balance any budgets or get rid of the deficit, even if our government decided to really put a halt to everything. That's like saying credit card debt and all the problems that come with it will go away if you just stop using your credits cards. But you still have to pay off the balance somehow, and find a way to make the minimum payments, and that can only happen so many ways.

[Super Dude]

Flaw with your argument: the wealthy and governing class don't like to be taxed, but the fact of the matter is they are paying more taxes than most of the country.

My evidence:

https://www.taxfoundation.org/press/show/22652.html
https://money.cnn.com/2009/09/30/pf/taxes/who_pays_taxes/index.htm

And with Obama lowering taxes for the lower 50% (little known fact, thanks to Beck), the wealthy are paying a higher proportion than ever.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

Why taxes are a good thing:

They give the government money. That's how they pay for things. So how on earth does this make sense to you?:

I don't understand how anybody can think that too little taxation is one America's empire ending faults.

too little taxation = too little revenue. Surely as someone who understands business you will agree that we need more revenue. Especially with all the debt we have

[eric42434224]

Let's see where America fits in with the model of every other empire in history:

1.) Government mired in bureaucracy and unable to do anything? Check.
2.) Overstretched, financially burdensome imperialism fraught with military failures? Check.
3.) Populous failing to participate and increasingly falling into unemployment? Check.
4.) Absolute refusal of the wealthy and governing class to allow themselves to be taxed? Check.

I think that about does it. Discuss.

Every example you cite (except for the ones that basically are not true) has already occurred in the country's history, some to far greater degrees than now, yet we survived.  This type of over-dramatic stuff reminds me of clients who come into the bank thinking this is the end of the world...."we are going into depression!"...."the dollar will be worthless by next year!"...."Its the end of the world!"
History is full of similar stuff, but people are so willing to forget them, and so willing to think that what is happening now is the worst thing to happen in history.

The sky is not falling, and our empire is not about to be run over by the Gauls.
Relax Chicken Little.

[Super Dude]

Let's see where America fits in with the model of every other empire in history:

1.) Government mired in bureaucracy and unable to do anything? Check.
2.) Overstretched, financially burdensome imperialism fraught with military failures? Check.
3.) Populous failing to participate and increasingly falling into unemployment? Check.
4.) Absolute refusal of the wealthy and governing class to allow themselves to be taxed? Check.

I think that about does it. Discuss.

Every example you cite (except for the ones that basically are not true) has already occurred in the country's history, some to far greater degrees than now, yet we survived.  This type of over-dramatic stuff reminds me of clients who come into the bank thinking this is the end of the world...."we are going into depression!"...."the dollar will be worthless by next year!"...."Its the end of the world!"
History is full of similar stuff, but people are so willing to forget them, and so willing to think that what is happening now is the worst thing to happen in history.

The sky is not falling, and our empire is not about to be run over by the Gauls.
Relax Chicken Little.

I mean, we are in a depression right now; that isn't an overhyped statement.  But as you've pointed out, it's not the first economic debacle in our nation's history; we'll ride this one out soon enough.  Heh, I'm sure in ten years we'll have another Age of Reagan.

[Chino]

the wealthy are paying a higher proportion than ever.

Wasn't the tax rate under FDR something like 85%-90%?

[Super Dude]

Oh I dunno, but so then still, all the more reason for people today to quit their bitching.  And yeah if we're talking purely in proportions of the tax bracket, the wealthy are still paying for about 90% of the country.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

Oh I dunno, but so then still, all the more reason for people today to quit their bitching.  And yeah if we're talking purely in proportions of the tax bracket, the wealthy are still paying for about 90% of the country.

This is what irked me about the Tea Party so much

"We're being taxed to death!"

...

No you're not. You have the lowest tax rate EVER. So stop complaining

[Perpetual Change]

The sky is not falling, and our empire is not about to be run over by the Gauls.
Relax Chicken Little.

Now it's this kind of baseless optimism and dismissal of real problems in the face of crises that allowed us to get here in the first place.

[eric42434224]

The sky is not falling, and our empire is not about to be run over by the Gauls.
Relax Chicken Little.

Now it's this kind of baseless optimism and dismissal of real problems in the face of crises that allowed us to get here in the first place.

Never said there weren't problems.  In fact, I did aknowledge there are problems.  I just dont share your view that the end of America is at hand.

[eric42434224]

Let's see where America fits in with the model of every other empire in history:

1.) Government mired in bureaucracy and unable to do anything? Check.
2.) Overstretched, financially burdensome imperialism fraught with military failures? Check.
3.) Populous failing to participate and increasingly falling into unemployment? Check.
4.) Absolute refusal of the wealthy and governing class to allow themselves to be taxed? Check.

I think that about does it. Discuss.

Every example you cite (except for the ones that basically are not true) has already occurred in the country's history, some to far greater degrees than now, yet we survived.  This type of over-dramatic stuff reminds me of clients who come into the bank thinking this is the end of the world...."we are going into depression!"...."the dollar will be worthless by next year!"...."Its the end of the world!"
History is full of similar stuff, but people are so willing to forget them, and so willing to think that what is happening now is the worst thing to happen in history.

The sky is not falling, and our empire is not about to be run over by the Gauls.
Relax Chicken Little.

I mean, we are in a depression right now; that isn't an overhyped statement.  But as you've pointed out, it's not the first economic debacle in our nation's history; we'll ride this one out soon enough.  Heh, I'm sure in ten years we'll have another Age of Reagan.

We are not in a depression.  Period.  Fact.
Saying we are in a depression is not only overhyped, but just plain wrong.
We are in a recession.  A particularly nasty one.  But compared to the numbers in the depression, we arent even close.
I mean really....unemployment was up to 25% in the great depression.

[Super Dude]

I never said we were re-experiencing THE depression; this is A depression, like the one in 1968-1985, like the one in the late 1800s...not every depression is an unprecedented catastrophe. That's why it was called the GREAT depression, because no previous depression had hit people that hard and on such a near-global scale.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

I think he's saying that we're in a recession as opposed to a depression.

Which I believe there is some debate over

[William Wallace]

Why taxes are a good thing:

They give the government money. That's how they pay for things. So how on earth does this make sense to you?:

I don't understand how anybody can think that too little taxation is one America's empire ending faults.

too little taxation = too little revenue. Surely as someone who understands business you will agree that we need more revenue. Especially with all the debt we have

That's ridiculously oversimplified. Often times, a progressive tax policy like the one you describe results in less revenue. There's a lot of reasons, but here's one for now. Taxes are extracted from productive businesses and individuals and fucked away by government on things that people don't want to buy - subsidies for NPR, for example. One of the consequences is that businesses have less money to hire employees and invest in expanding their operations, and consumers have less money to sped. That can slow economic growth and sometimes reverse it. Sluggish economies always yield lower tax revenues in the long run compared to growing economies.

[eric42434224]

I never said we were re-experiencing THE depression; this is A depression, like the one in 1968-1985, like the one in the late 1800s...not every depression is an unprecedented catastrophe. That's why it was called the GREAT depression, because no previous depression had hit people that hard and on such a near-global scale.

Sorry, but you are not correct.  We are in a recession.  Some call it the Great Recession, because it is one of, if not the worst recession we have experienced.
It is not a depression.  The parameters for recession and depression are pretty simple.
Are you sure we are talking about the same thing?  There hasnt been a depression since the great depression, and in the time period of 1968 to 1985 there were, I think, 4 short individual recessions.

[eric42434224]

I think he's saying that we're in a recession as opposed to a depression.
Which I believe there is some debate over

I think he pretty clearly stated we are in a depression.
I dont think he understands the difference between a recession, and a depression.
As the parameters stand, we are not in a depression, and there hasnt been a depression since the Great Depression.

[pogoowner]

the wealthy are paying a higher proportion than ever.

Wasn't the tax rate under FDR something like 85%-90%?

If I remember correctly, the TOP tax bracket paid 79% under Roosevelt, but the only person that qualified at the time was Rockefeller.

[emindead]

I never said we were re-experiencing THE depression; this is A depression, like the one in 1968-1985, like the one in the late 1800s...not every depression is an unprecedented catastrophe. That's why it was called the GREAT depression, because no previous depression had hit people that hard and on such a near-global scale.

You've been doing your homework

They have always been depressions, the thing is that we love euphemisms so we soften the names to our taste; we don't want to scare the public.

We live in a world of euphemism. Undertakers have become "morticians," press agents are now "public relations counsellors" and janitors have all been transformed into "superintendents." In every walk of life, plain facts have been wrapped in cloudy camouflage.

No less has this been true of economics. In the old days, we used to suffer nearly periodic economic crises, the sudden onset of which was called a "panic," and the lingering trough period after the panic was called "depression."

The most famous depression in modern times, of course, was the one that began in a typical financial panic in 1929 and lasted until the advent of World War II. After the disaster of 1929, economists and politicians resolved that this must never happen again. The easiest way of succeeding at this resolve was, simply to define "depressions" out of existence. From that point on, America was to suffer no further depressions. For when the next sharp depression came along, in 1937-38, the economists simply refused to use the dread name, and came up with a new, much softer-sounding word: "recession." From that point on, we have been through quite a few recessions, but not a single depression.

[lordxizor]

While I don't think it's outside of the realm of possibility that the US as we know it would crumble, I don't think it's happening yet. This is nothing new really. We had Vietanm, which in a lot of ways was worse than Afghanistan/Iraq (though shorter). We've had recessions/depressions before and come out of it stronger. I'm not a huge politics buff, but have we ever had a government as polarized as we do today? That's the one thing that really worries me.

Interesting speculation might be how the US would break up and restructure were it to fall apart. I think it would basically be a split between the liberal (New England, upper Midwest, West) and conservative (south, lower Midwest, maybe the rockies region) states. Perhaps with Texas becoming it's own country. Any thoughts?

[Chino]

I think the governmemt would just start printing money as a last resort if America was on the verge of a total failure. Much like Germany did in the 30s.

[Adami]

I think the governmemt would just start printing money as a last resort if America was on the verge of a total failure. Much like Germany did in the 30s.

Oh god I'm dead.

[Super Dude]

While I don't think it's outside of the realm of possibility that the US as we know it would crumble, I don't think it's happening yet. This is nothing new really. We had Vietanm, which in a lot of ways was worse than Afghanistan/Iraq (though shorter). We've had recessions/depressions before and come out of it stronger. I'm not a huge politics buff, but have we ever had a government as polarized as we do today? That's the one thing that really worries me.

Interesting speculation might be how the US would break up and restructure were it to fall apart. I think it would basically be a split between the liberal (New England, upper Midwest, West) and conservative (south, lower Midwest, maybe the rockies region) states. Perhaps with Texas becoming it's own country. Any thoughts?

I think that's the only issue hanging in the air.  It was more apparent in the 60s and 70s, what with the minutemen gassing college kids and all, but the divides are wider than ever.

[Super Dude]

I think the governmemt would just start printing money as a last resort if America was on the verge of a total failure. Much like Germany did in the 30s.

Oh god I'm dead.

Let's skip town and smuggle ourselves to England!

[El Barto]

While I don't think it's outside of the realm of possibility that the US as we know it would crumble, I don't think it's happening yet. This is nothing new really. We had Vietanm, which in a lot of ways was worse than Afghanistan/Iraq (though shorter). We've had recessions/depressions before and come out of it stronger. I'm not a huge politics buff, but have we ever had a government as polarized as we do today? That's the one thing that really worries me.

Interesting speculation might be how the US would break up and restructure were it to fall apart. I think it would basically be a split between the liberal (New England, upper Midwest, West) and conservative (south, lower Midwest, maybe the rockies region) states. Perhaps with Texas becoming it's own country. Any thoughts?

I've often wondered this (and I think I started a thread about it many moon ago).  Personally, I attribute the future demise of Amerika to the ongoing and exponentially increasing decay of society.  While we're hauling ass towards a state where success is measured by the size and quality of your television, other countries continue to focus on the things that really matter.

However, what form the collapse will take is a mystery to me.  I suppose the most likely outcome will include an economic collapse, polarization of both classes and ethnicities,  and a loss of common identity.  I don't think we'll one day cease to be the USA, but the states won't be very united and they won't collectively amount to a superpower. 

[GuineaPig]

I think the real trouble the States will face in the next 50 years will be population migrations and the price of water.  I would expect to see mass illegal immigration from Mexico, combined with increased temperatures and droughts in the southern states to make conditions very shitty down there.

[emindead]

If anything people will leave the US.

[El Barto]

If anything people will leave the US.

Upper class white people will.  Mexicans will continue to come here for a variety of reasons.  I suspect they'll get Texas back, eventually. 

[emindead]

And not New Mexico, Colorado and California?

[PlaysLikeMyung]

Why taxes are a good thing:

They give the government money. That's how they pay for things. So how on earth does this make sense to you?:

I don't understand how anybody can think that too little taxation is one America's empire ending faults.

too little taxation = too little revenue. Surely as someone who understands business you will agree that we need more revenue. Especially with all the debt we have

That's ridiculously oversimplified. Often times, a progressive tax policy like the one you describe results in less revenue. There's a lot of reasons, but here's one for now. Taxes are extracted from productive businesses and individuals and fucked away by government on things that people don't want to buy - subsidies for NPR, for example. One of the consequences is that businesses have less money to hire employees and invest in expanding their operations, and consumers have less money to sped. That can slow economic growth and sometimes reverse it. Sluggish economies always yield lower tax revenues in the long run compared to growing economies.

Well, how the government spends it's money is a completely different problem. Bottom line is that taxes are important. We do need them. And it works better if the people who actually have a ton of money to pay pays the most.