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

[rumborak]

I think honestly, the US is buckling under the demands on it. It has to deal with the outcomes of its foreign policies, has to deal with the loss of being a superpower, and under all of this, discord is rising because everybody has different priorities, causing a deadlock under which nothing of importance is done. And all the while other nations are moving forward.

rumborakk

[Adami]

I think honestly, the US is buckling under the demands on it. It has to deal with the outcomes of its foreign policies, has to deal with the loss of being a superpower, and under all of this, discord is rising because everybody has different priorities, causing a deadlock under which nothing of importance is done. And all the while other nations are moving forward.

rumborak

So basically England will rise from the ashes and reclaim it's rightful empire again?

[j]

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.

They do.

Also, an incompetent and wasteful government isn't really a different problem, because it DETERMINES the success or failure of taxation as the nation's monetary "fuel".

I think honestly, the US is buckling under the demands on it. It has to deal with the outcomes of its foreign policies, has to deal with the loss of being a superpower, and under all of this, discord is rising because everybody has different priorities, causing a deadlock under which nothing of importance is done. And all the while other nations are moving forward.

rumborak

You mean China?

-J

[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.

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.

It's not a different problem. When you say the government needs taxes, what exactly are they needed for? Essential services like roadways and law enforcement? Sure. But when you start implementing massive entitlements, which continually consume resources without serving their purposes, "need" becomes debatable. And the wealthiest earners do indeed pay the most in taxes.

[Perpetual Change]

It's not a different problem. When you say the government needs taxes, what exactly are they needed for? Essential services like roadways and law enforcement? Sure. But when you start implementing massive entitlements, which continually consume resources without serving their purposes, "need" becomes debatable. And the wealthiest earners do indeed pay the most in taxes.

WW, I'm still not sure how this is related. The idea that governments should take the path your suggesting is valid, but it's about as old as the US Constitution. The reality we're discussing here is that governments through history spend money on lots of things-- including our own despite its Constitution-- and, historically, empire after empire have crumbled partly because they became unable to afford their own weight thanks to, among other things, the wealthy avoiding taxes like the plague. I understand and even partially appreciate your zeal for a small government, but I'm merely pointing out some things I perceive to be echoing from history.

Maybe the spending is the real problem. However, I'm simply pointing out what I've noted from histories of Rome and China, and unfortunately there's no failed libertarian empires of the past from which draw historical parallels.

[William Wallace]

It's not a different problem. When you say the government needs taxes, what exactly are they needed for? Essential services like roadways and law enforcement? Sure. But when you start implementing massive entitlements, which continually consume resources without serving their purposes, "need" becomes debatable. And the wealthiest earners do indeed pay the most in taxes.

WW, I'm still not sure how this is related. The idea that governments should take the path your suggesting is valid, but it's about as old as the US Constitution. The reality we're discussing here is that governments through history spend money on lots of things-- including our own despite its Constitution-- and, historically, empire after empire have crumbled partly because they became unable to afford their own weight thanks to, among other things, the wealthy avoiding taxes like the plague. I understand and even partially appreciate your zeal for a small government, but I'm merely pointing out some things I perceive to be echoing from history.

Maybe the spending is the real problem. However, I'm simply pointing out what I've noted from histories of Rome and China, and unfortunately there's no failed libertarian empires of the past from which draw historical parallels.

I think the parallels you're drawing are valid, and If we're going to have an empire we have to pay for it. I just think we ought to not have an empire. Bring the troops home, reform Medicaid and social security (among other things) and use that money to pay down some of the debt. All of that can be done without levying more taxes on the people that make life better for everyone. We largely agree, I think. But the idea of taxing the rich more smacks of class warfare - and that's bullshit. 

[Perpetual Change]

It's not a different problem. When you say the government needs taxes, what exactly are they needed for? Essential services like roadways and law enforcement? Sure. But when you start implementing massive entitlements, which continually consume resources without serving their purposes, "need" becomes debatable. And the wealthiest earners do indeed pay the most in taxes.

WW, I'm still not sure how this is related. The idea that governments should take the path your suggesting is valid, but it's about as old as the US Constitution. The reality we're discussing here is that governments through history spend money on lots of things-- including our own despite its Constitution-- and, historically, empire after empire have crumbled partly because they became unable to afford their own weight thanks to, among other things, the wealthy avoiding taxes like the plague. I understand and even partially appreciate your zeal for a small government, but I'm merely pointing out some things I perceive to be echoing from history.

Maybe the spending is the real problem. However, I'm simply pointing out what I've noted from histories of Rome and China, and unfortunately there's no failed libertarian empires of the past from which draw historical parallels.

I think the parallels you're drawing are valid, and If we're going to have an empire we have to pay for it. I just think we ought to not have an empire. Bring the troops home, reform Medicaid and social security (among other things) and use that money to pay down some of the debt. All of that can be done without levying more taxes on the people that make life better for everyone. We largely agree, I think. But the idea of taxing the rich more smacks of class warfare - and that's bullshit. 

Yeah, we've been through this before. The priority is ending the empire first. A debate about what kinds of programs can and can't be afforded-- or how much people should be taxed for them-- is useless when the majority of your money is still being spent on ridiculous dead-end conflicts and bailing out failing industries.

[AndyDT]

Europe's empires are gone and America's imperium is going.  It seems increasingly doubtful that the United States will have anything like Britain's success in shaping a succeeding world order that protects its interests, preserves its prosperity, and bears the imprint of its best values.

https://www.alternet.org/world/149080/4_scenarios_for_the_coming_collapse_of_the_american_empire/?page=entire

[Super Dude]

pay the most in taxes.

Slightly newer article, but you basically just posted the exact same data I did a page ago.

Europe's empires are gone and America's imperium is going.  It seems increasingly doubtful that the United States will have anything like Britain's success in shaping a succeeding world order that protects its interests, preserves its prosperity, and bears the imprint of its best values.

https://www.alternet.org/world/149080/4_scenarios_for_the_coming_collapse_of_the_american_empire/?page=entire

[El Barto]

Europe's empires are gone and America's imperium is going.  It seems increasingly doubtful that the United States will have anything like Britain's success in shaping a succeeding world order that protects its interests, preserves its prosperity, and bears the imprint of its best values.

https://www.alternet.org/world/149080/4_scenarios_for_the_coming_collapse_of_the_american_empire/?page=entire

I wouldn't go that far.  There's plenty of fiction involved, but many of the premises are valid.

What the author overlooks is that the same thing that has screwed us could easily happen to others and at a much faster rate.  You think the Chinese won't burn themselves out just as fast?  These are folks who haven't had access to the technological luxuries we've had or the freedoms.  Their culture might protect them quite a bit, but I'm not sure that it'll be enough.  I suspect that if you take a village of people who live in oppression in bamboo huts and suddenly give them the trappings of American life, they'll be watching NASCAR, drinking beer and beating their wives soon enough. 

And lets not forget that they have a huge liability in that massive population of theirs.  We can feed everybody here and still export a shitload of chow to everybody else in the world.  I don't think that's the case in China.

[Perpetual Change]

The oil scenario is questionable to me too. Isn't America sitting on a shitload of untapped oil?

[lordxizor]

The oil scenario is questionable to me too. Isn't America sitting on a shitload of untapped oil?

I know there's a fair amount. I've always thought the US should continue to import the majority of it's oil as long as it cheap while working really hard on next generation energy technologies. Then, as the rest of the world's oil is running out, either sell them our new technology or the oil we've been sitting on since we hopefully wouldn't need it anymore.

[ack44]

The oil scenario is questionable to me too. Isn't America sitting on a shitload of untapped oil?

The U.S. passed peak production in the 70s and has always been declining as far as I know.

[Perpetual Change]

The oil scenario is questionable to me too. Isn't America sitting on a shitload of untapped oil?

The U.S. passed peak production in the 70s and has always been declining as far as I know.

I thought there were still plenty of untapped sources, though.

[Super Dude]

Yeah, only in Alaska I think.

[El Barto]

Untapped doesn't mean easy to get to.  If you have to build a nuclear reactor to get enough power to extract it, like the Canadians,  then what's the point?

[XJDenton]

Because you get access to a crapload of hydrocarbons that are quite hard to get anywhere else?

[gmillerdrake]

The underlying issue behind America's "problem" at this point in history is nothing other than 'GREED'. Greed time and time again seduces man's simple mind. Some would throw 'power' in there as well but I submit 'power' is just a branch of 'Greed'. Plain and simple, there are a bunch of greedy men/women in our government who care nothing for anyone else but themselves and how they can improve thier lives.
  I however am an optimist and don't see America falling apart and ceasing to exist. I believe yes this is a dark chapter, but there are great men and women in the ranks, most likely children at the moment, who will right the ship and press on into the future. I happen to be raising (3) of them at the moment
  The folk who have contributed and continue to contribute to this shameful way of operating our country WILL reap what they are sewing, call it what you choose. Karma, cosmic justice.....they will not go unpunished.

[lordxizor]

they will not go unpunished.

I don't know. I was really hoping Bush and Cheney would get punished for a lot of the shit they pulled, but it's just more of the same.

[gmillerdrake]

they will not go unpunished.

I don't know. I was really hoping Bush and Cheney would get punished for a lot of the shit they pulled, but it's just more of the same.

I am speaking more in a spiritual sense. I used to get very upset and worked up over political issues and the overall corruptness of our system. Thankfully as I have journeyed along my walk of faith I have let go alot of that anger and emotion tied to politics, because I believe corrupt, evil individuals will indeed be held accountable. Maybe not here on earth, but they will ultimately recieve thier due. You know if this greed and corruption and way of life these individuals are undertaking is what they are interested in and wish to 'sew' towards their eternity then I could care less and in fact I feel sorry for them.
  I still care about politics and who is 'running the show' to the point of it is upsetting that forthcoming generations are being dealt a tough hand but I just look at it as my duty to raise up my kids not to complain about it and feel sorry for themselves and use the actions of spiritually devoid people as an excuse to fail or even look for a handout or retribution of some sort. In fact my wife and I pray nightly that we will have the strength and guidance to raise our boys to desire to take charge and be historical world changers that do something about it.

[emindead]

Hey, look! It's another "Greed" is the source of all our troubles! guy.

[Perpetual Change]

Those guys are even worse than the "greed is good" philosophical shock-jocks.

[gmillerdrake]

Hey, look! It's another "Greed" is the source of all our troubles! guy.

I apologize for adding such a simple opinion to the thread, I should have know that it wouldn't come close to matching the cunning or craftiness of all you 'high post count' folk. Gimme a freakin' break. I am beginning to believe the rumors I had heard about the DTF after all.

[antigoon]

There are rumors about DTF?

[Super Dude]

That's amazing, I wasn't aware we even had a reputation.

Listen, we didn't mean any offense (or at least most of us apart from emindead didn't ), but it's just easy to dismiss an argument like that because it's very preachy and moral, when political discussion is meant to focus on the practical and social.  Not to mention many of us here don't take much stock in the religious argument, because many of us are atheists (first of all), and second because many of us are also liberals who believe that religion should stay out of governance.

[gmillerdrake]

That's amazing, I wasn't aware we even had a reputation.

Listen, we didn't mean any offense (or at least most of us apart from emindead didn't ), but it's just easy to dismiss an argument like that because it's very preachy and moral, when political discussion is meant to focus on the practical and social.  Not to mention many of us here don't take much stock in the religious argument, because many of us are atheists (first of all), and second because many of us are also liberals who believe that religion should stay out of governance.

The reputation I referred to was that if I didn't have a 15,000 post count I would either be ignored or ridiculed. I lurked for a while here before signing up becasue I didn't see that at all. I guess that response immediately triggered the 'warning' I had heard.

Likewise, I suppose I would be considered an outsider then because I am a pretty traditional person with conservative beliefs. I believe the fact that 'religion' being pushed and phazed out of government (and society for that matter) or at least the tenants that most emphasize is the reason we have ended up with a government that is doing what it is doing to the people today. It's pretty easy to bend a hard working American family over time and time again and fleece them dry if you don't 'believe' in anything or have any moral or ethical code you live by.
 There can be n enormous argument made with countless examples and articles to reference each point as to why we are in the situation we are in. But when boiled down to the prime variable, greeed is always your common  denomonaotor. I know that is much to simple minded for most of you liberal folk to appreciate,  I know debate and long winded conversation is your forte..but it is not always as complicated as we tend to make it.

[Nigerius Rex]

Another reason (and my intention with the following is not meant to be hurtful) why you may have seen the response you did was because your opinion shows a great lack of understanding into how our economy and government coexist.

If I were to summarize as an example, I would attribute our growing problems to the government overextending and overspending, an uneducated and generally degrading electorate, even simpler politicians who are more concerned with playing the game and pleasing their individual districts, and an increase in taxes and unassociated fees. Trying to compile all of those things into something as simple as greed just comes off as a little ignorant is all.

If you stick around you will see that arguments like yours get shot down and insulted regardless of post count or status.  

[Perpetual Change]

Greed is bad. Rational self-interest is good. I can't believe people still adhere to Ayn Rand's absolutely fumbled attempt at defining and equating those two terms.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

I know that is much to simple minded for most of you liberal folk to appreciate, 

Regardless of whether or not you were joking, this sorts of comments don't fly here. Brash generalizations are frowned upon and not conducive to any arguments. I direct you to this thread to read: https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=9776.0

[Perpetual Change]

Yeah, the problem with PR newbs is they always come in with a know-it-all attitude, like they're gods gift to us PR folk.

[El Barto]

Yeah, the problem with PR newbs is they always come in with a know-it-all attitude, like they're gods gift to us PR folk.

Silly and uncalled for.  Everybody is a P/R newb at some point,  and most of us dealt with it just fine. 

And I don't understand what people's problem with his post was [except Em, and WW if he shows up].  I disagree with it, but only marginally.  Greed is certainly a component of the social decay that I refer to.  And the example that he cited were perfectly valid.  Are you going to say that greed isn't a key component of the political corruption that's currently fucking us all?  I think there's far more to it than he mentioned,  and if I believed in the salvation that gives him such peace of mind I'd be pretty offended by it,  but I wouldn't rag on the guy for his opinion. 

Quite honestly, it seems like a lot of people have become somewhat hostile to the newbs that show up here.  I'm unfamiliar with the reputation that he referred to, and for the most part I think it's bogus, but over the last couple of months it seems to be looking a bit more genuine. 

[Super Dude]

That's amazing, I wasn't aware we even had a reputation.

Listen, we didn't mean any offense (or at least most of us apart from emindead didn't ), but it's just easy to dismiss an argument like that because it's very preachy and moral, when political discussion is meant to focus on the practical and social.  Not to mention many of us here don't take much stock in the religious argument, because many of us are atheists (first of all), and second because many of us are also liberals who believe that religion should stay out of governance.

The reputation I referred to was that if I didn't have a 15,000 post count I would either be ignored or ridiculed. I lurked for a while here before signing up becasue I didn't see that at all. I guess that response immediately triggered the 'warning' I had heard.

Likewise, I suppose I would be considered an outsider then because I am a pretty traditional person with conservative beliefs. I believe the fact that 'religion' being pushed and phazed out of government (and society for that matter) or at least the tenants that most emphasize is the reason we have ended up with a government that is doing what it is doing to the people today. It's pretty easy to bend a hard working American family over time and time again and fleece them dry if you don't 'believe' in anything or have any moral or ethical code you live by.
 There can be n enormous argument made with countless examples and articles to reference each point as to why we are in the situation we are in. But when boiled down to the prime variable, greeed is always your common  denomonaotor. I know that is much to simple minded for most of you liberal folk to appreciate,  I know debate and long winded conversation is your forte..but it is not always as complicated as we tend to make it.

Well to begin with, one can have a moral or ethical code without religion.  The problem in American governance today is that the "good guys" in government are forced to play dirty because the bad guys aren't willing to play nice.

Second, I will not be patronized by someone who cannot spell the word denominator.

[Perpetual Change]

Quite honestly, it seems like a lot of people have become somewhat hostile to the newbs that show up here.  I'm unfamiliar with the reputation that he referred to, and for the most part I think it's bogus, but over the last couple of months it seems to be looking a bit more genuine.  

No one was hostile to gmillerdrake. In fact, his post barely received a response. At the slightest disagreement (all in all, one sentence from emindead), his attitude turned completely sardonic, tried to make this a battle about post count, and threw a fit about DTF's "reputation." I have nothing against the guy either, but I don't see how this is anyone else's fault.

And I'm not hostile to newbs at all. I was really just trying to point out that people new to PR are same types who introduce themselves with phrases like, "I'll tell you exactly why..." or "Maybe this is too complex for you all...".

[gmillerdrake]

I know that is much to simple minded for most of you liberal folk to appreciate, 

Regardless of whether or not you were joking, this sorts of comments don't fly here. Brash generalizations are frowned upon and not conducive to any arguments. I direct you to this thread to read: https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=9776.0

I apologize for that. I was joking and trying to lighten the mood as I am not as confrontational and short tempered as I have come off. Like SuperDude mentioned, no one was really hostile I may have interpreted a response to be a bit unfair and dismisal towards my post and it stimulated me to be somewhat defensive.

Yeah, the problem with PR newbs is they always come in with a know-it-all attitude, like they're gods gift to us PR folk.

That was unfair man. And in fact this was what began this entire exchange. Exactly the 'feeling' I encountered when reading you and emindead's exchange. Felt belittled a bit but hey, interpretation over the internet is tricky and I should have just overlooked it anyway.

 

Another reason (and my intention with the following is not meant to be hurtful) why you may have seen the response you did was because your opinion shows a great lack of understanding into how our economy and government coexist.

I would say that I have a 'better than average' understanding of the way our government and economy coexist meaning I keep up on current events and take in what is going on, by no means am I in the dark on the issue but I find it a bit mind numbing to try and map out the cure or deconstruct the problem. Not my side of the brain. I am not ashamed to admit that there are some very advanced opinions/ideas that I have seen posted that exceed my pay grade and I tell you what, looks like a few of you have done your homework. As I am sure from the brief interaction we have had here, I am less x's and o's and look at things in a more emotional manner.  I do not/will not hide my faith but understand that not all share the same beliefs that I do, but regardless of what opinions may have been formed by now I do not arbitrarily judge anyone and/or thier opinion.

I don't plan on going anywhere so I suppose introductions are in order. Hi my name is 'Gary' and I love to stir up some controversy (that's a joke BTW)

[Perpetual Change]

That was unfair man. And in fact this was what began this entire exchange. Exactly the 'feeling' I encountered when reading you and emindead's exchange. Felt belittled a bit but hey, interpretation over the internet is tricky and I should have just overlooked it anyway.

See, if you'd been around longer, you would have known I was taking a pot-shot at Em's idol.