Military Power

Well, in the Cold War, the U.S. was fighting the spread of Communism (technically Socialism though) because it is fundamentally opposed to Capitalism. However, the U.S. seems to be becoming a Socialist country itself. First off, those who are too lazy to work are "entitled" to all kinds of free things from the government (I think those who can't should be helped, but those who won't on the other hand are just leaches). Everyone wants the government to provide everything for them (and if they get in trouble for making bad decisions feel "entitled" to have the government bail them out of their mess. Free Healthcare, free school, free cell phones, free, free, free. And now the Government is buying shares of banks, so, now we get state owned banks (another Socialist thing). So, looks like we need to invade ourselves to prevent the spread of Socialism.

This is not just a problem that affects the USA. An Afghan woman with her seven children (none of whom work) is provided with a £1.2 million mansion in West London by the local council. With Welfare payments for living costs coupled with free schooling and health care it has been estimated that this family is costing the taxpayer an estimated £12,500 per month (all without putting anything back into the system that feeds and houses them). Well, although this may be an extreme case, I think we all know of many Pensioners and people who have lost their homes and jobs, as a result of the mess made to the world’s financial economies by those greedy bankers, who have for too long been allowed to gamble away the savings of the honest and hard working public, who often survive on far less.

Socialism in itself is not the ill. In fact Socialism can bring many benefits to the ordinary citizen (Nobody being refused Medical care because they cannot afford the cost of treatment; Provision of decent education to all regardless of class or situation; looking after the elderly and infirm etc). The problems arise where incompetent bureaucrats fail to ensure that the system is run in an honest and sensible manner (Stalin had a way of dealing with this drawback-Purge the incompetents from their offices).

A free Trade economic system is fine provided it is properly controlled and regulated. When it is not, then well intentioned policies fall apart at the hands of the unscrupulous, greedy and selfish minority who care nothing for the welfare of their fellow man. When the private sector fails to provide for the public’s needs, then it is your Government’s job to ensure that the public’s needs are met (even if this means taking direct control).

Hobilar and Max, you guys have very good points. This is a problem that is starting to develop very rapidly in the "Free World". A perfect example, is this economic bail-out which is going on right now in the U.S. Giants such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, should have been allowed to fail, and then that would have left room for the next guys in line to rise to the ranks and maybe provide something different for the economy. Then, the economy would have fixed itself...but instead we have to bail-out those corporate giants so that they can continue to reap in tax dollars for their benefit.

I know people who are unable to work, and probably wont be able to work the rest of their lives. I am more than happy to provide tax money for them so that they can survive. However I do know people who just plain lazy and just sit around watching TV all day, instead of going out and earning their own keep. I am not willing to provide tax dollars for them.

One theory I have, is that people these days don't have good, solid leaders anymore...they just don't. Roosevelt, Kennedy and Clinton are probably the three best leaders the United States had in the 20th century. For England, nobody can compare to Churchill (I wish I could sit and have a pint and a cigar with that guy). Enough said, the three U.S. presidents did a fantastic job. This was due to their great speech tactics which they had, and also to their general "human" approach to leading a mass group of people. They were so good at their job that not just the general public followed their every footstep, but also the corporations. Together, all worked in providing the best resolutions for the country at that time, and we thrived. Of course there was downtime in economics, but just those three gentleman being the leaders they were, the country didn't seem to care and just listened, and then we thrived automatically.

I know some of what I said may not make sense, but that is the best I can do to describe what I'm thinking...

I have to disagree about Clinton. Personally, I'm glad that 9/11 didn't happen under Clinton's watch, or the only retaliation that would have happened would have been a couple of cruse missiles (assuming he needed a distraction from his Promiscuity). Bill Clinton's talent for confounding his enemies, manipulating his friends, and playing all sides against the middle reminds me a lot of Obama (we'll go there in a little bit).

Considering the circumstances under which the U.S. economy has labored for the past few years, President Bush's record is all the more impressive. When George W. Bush moved into the White House, the economy was on the verge of recession. The largest stock market bubble in U.S. history had recently burst, exports were declining, manufacturing employment had been falling for half a year, and people were finding it harder and harder to find work. And that was before 9/11, the war on terror, and the revelations of the corporate-governance scandals that grew out of the late 1990s. The question is, where did all this trouble come from? I would have to say that if the economy is what it is because of the president, as you seem to be suggesting, the blame lies squarely on Bill Clinton.

FDR worsened the financial collapse he inherited from Hoover by raising taxes, pursuing a tight money policy and failing to rescind the Smoot-Hawley trade tariffs. It took Reagan, with help from Paul Volcker, less than three years to get the economy booming after the Carter-era malaise.

I'll give you Kennedy, I think he was a really great president. Sadly, his presidency was cut tragically short. Had he had more time I think he definitely would have been one of the best leaders of all time. However, the fatal flaw for any president would be that America's enemies around the world would perceive him as weak and act accordingly and ironically, America suffered that kind of problem after JFK became President: a belief that the President of the United States was afraid to fight and therefore could be bullied.

If good leadership is resting on "great speech tactics", "leading a mass group of people" and "the general public followed their every footstep" then I'd say Obama will be a great leader. But, you would have to concede that Hitler had all of those qualities as well, and thus he would have to be listed along with Roosevelt, Kennedy, Churchill and Clinton as the Greatest Leaders of the 20th Century.

Wow, this thread devolved fast. 3 replies in and already comparing to Hitler. I agree with Forestry_man that it is because we don't have good leaders any more (at least partly). It is a sad commentary on the state of the nation when Clinton is considered one of the best leaders of the U.S. in the last century. However, I think that Max hit the nail on the head as to what the real problem is, everyone has a sense of entitlement.

Spazz Maticus wrote:I have to disagree about Clinton. Personally, I'm glad that 9/11 didn't happen under Clinton's watch, or the only retaliation that would have happened would have been a couple of cruse missiles (assuming he needed a distraction from his Promiscuity).

Yes, yes, Clinton is a moral degenerate, tell me something the world doesn't already know. The problem is that he represented America, and did a fine job doing so, as Americans, as a whole, are moral degenerates. That all started around the Korea/Vietnam era with the whole PC and separation of church and state nonsense. The U.S. was founded on freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion, and if you want to be technical, the U.S. has a state religion, Atheism. The problem with that isn't that my freedom of religion is being infringed upon (well, that is a problem, but not the big problem), the problem is that there is no longer any basis to define morality. All of the major religions (Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, Taoism, ect), and most of the smaller ones, have the same base morals that the religion is based on, they branch out past that but they all have the same foundation. Completely rejecting any religious base at all leaves you to determine your own morals, and, if left to determine their own morals it eventually declines to the point of "if it is good for me it is good, regardless of how it affects others". Ok, you may be wondering what all this has to do with this thread, and here is where it ties in. The major problem, as has been stated by a couple of people is this since of entitlement that seems to be running rampant in the U.S.. A lack of a moral code is one of the biggest contributors to that. If all that matters is you then it doesn't matter if you work 40 hours a week, 10 hours a week or don't work at all, and it doesn't mater if you are a rocket scientist, doctor, plumber, coal miner, or aspiring artist, you should get paid the same as everyone else and have all the benefits as everyone else, and if you can't then they shouldn't be able to either. People seem to not get the fact that you aren't going to get rich flipping burgers at McDonald's or being a coal miner, that just isn't going to happen.

I have to agree that "entitlement" is the real culprit here. Entitlement is the reason for the housing market failure. Entitlement is the reason gas prices are so high, which in turn is the reason all the other commodities prices are so high. Entitlement is the reason so many Americans are drowning in credit card debt and filing for bankruptcy. And Entitlements are one of the biggest problems facing the U.S. Economy.

Currently Entitlements (Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, ect) consume 53% of the National Budget. The Medicare Part A (Hospital Insurance) program began to run a deficit in FY 2007 and Social Security follows thereafter in 2017. Both programs are funded by dedicated payroll taxes that do not cover payouts and run increasing deficits for the foreseeable future, placing significant pressure on the budget. Social Security was designed to be a self-financing program, in which current workers pay taxes to support benefits received by current retirees. In the early years of the program, there were more than 16 workers for every beneficiary, which allowed the program to be financed with a very low payroll tax rate. Currently, there are 3.3 workers for every beneficiary, and a much higher tax rate. As the baby boom generation retires, the ratio of workers to beneficiaries will shrink further, to an estimated 2.9 workers in 2015 and 2.2 workers in 2030. As a result, starting in 2017, Social Security will collect less in dedicated taxes than it pays out in benefits, creating a gap that grows progressively wider over time. By 2030, revenues will be sufficient to finance only 79 percent of promised benefits, falling to 68 percent by 2080. Medicare is similar to Social Security in that it is tied to the number of retirees in the general population. But because its costs are also tied to health care inflation, its fiscal challenges are greater than Social Security’s in nature, magnitude, and complexity.

Wow, this thread is getting quite a bit more posts than I thought it would.

Luther, I wouldn't say it devolved, the comparisons, I thought, were quite accurate, and quite relevant.

Here is a prime example of some of what has been mentioned here. From a post CrazyCatman made.

Another pathetic attempt by the white person to keep the black person down. Soon Obama will be president and we will pillage and loot all of Uncle Whitey’s takings. You forget there are more of us poor than you rich and we won’t be swindled this time. In a decade or so when I’m rich I’ll vote for a Republican but for now since I’m poor I’m looking forward to getting my share of the pie.
Comment by Angry Black Man - October 29, 2008 @ 8:28 am

It is that whole "I deserve it whether or not I worked for it" thing. Here is a tip for you, you aren't going to make as much money flipping burgers as you would being, lets say, a CPA.

And this is the whole problem I have with, with a lot of U.S. citizens. When will people find out that they have to work for what they want in life? Nothing will be handed to you, ever...except if you win Power Ball. I'm more than willing to hand over some tax dollars to help someone out who really cant find a job, has a disability, or some other REASON why they can't work. But I am NOT willing to hand out some money to someone who is very capable of moving up the ladder and working hard, when all they do is just sit around and collect a check every month with a big smile on their face.

AmericanPride wrote:And this is the whole problem I have with, with a lot of U.S. citizens. When will people find out that they have to work for what they want in life? Nothing will be handed to you, ever...except if you win Power Ball. I'm more than willing to hand over some tax dollars to help someone out who really cant find a job, has a disability, or some other REASON why they can't work. But I am NOT willing to hand out some money to someone who is very capable of moving up the ladder and working hard, when all they do is just sit around and collect a check every month with a big smile on their face.

My sentiments exactly...

General Motors Corp and Cerberus Capital Management have resolved the major issues in a proposed GM-Chrysler merger, but the final form of any deal would depend on the financing and government support available, sources familiar with the talks said on Wednesday.

As GM seeks some $10 billion in U.S. government aid to support the deal, Chrysler owner Cerberus is in its own set of intense discussions with banks to refinance billions of dollars in Chrysler debt, the sources said.

First the U.S. takes over the banks, now the corporations...

Maximus the Destroyer wrote:First the U.S. takes over the banks, now the corporations...

And there we go.....

"If we were to allow the free market to take its course now, it would almost certainly lead to disorderly bankruptcy and liquidation for the automakers," Bush said. "Under ordinary economic circumstances, I would say this is the price that failed companies must pay -- and I would not favor intervening to prevent automakers from going out of business."

Bush says auto bailout necessary to safeguard economy

So, we are going to abandon the free market for a planned economy. A planned economy consists of state-owned enterprises, private enterprises directed by the state, or a combination of both. Sound familiar?

Oddly enough, important planned economies that existed in the past include the economy of the Soviet Union, China during its Great Leap Forward, India (prior to its economic reforms in 1991), Afghanistan under the Soviet occupation and under the Taliban, and Iraq under Saddam Hussein from 1979 to 2003. Also, planned economies still exist in some countries such as Cuba, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, and Burma.

Maximus the Destroyer wrote:

So, we are going to abandon the free market for a planned economy. A planned economy consists of state-owned enterprises, private enterprises directed by the state .

Yes please. There is not one area where a former public service that has been sold off to the public sector has not been an unmitigated disaster (OK the break-up of BMC is probably the exception but only because it was largely bought up by the Germans and Chinese). Is it too much to expect the railway companies to actually maintain the trains and track and to keep fares at an affordable cost (surely it is to everyone’s advantage to make more use of public transport not drive folk away from it because it is cheaper to run a polluting automobile. Is it too much to expect the mail to be delivered on time and to keep rural Post Offices open (most of which serve as the centre of their local communities). Why should Gas and Electric companies be allowed to continually exploit the poorest elements in society? How many more old ladies must die each winter through having to make the choice of ‘Heat or Eat’? I could go on for hours giving examples of where privatization has failed to deliver the goods.

It is simply not true that competition is always beneficial. The Private sector is only interested in bigger and bigger profits which benefit only a minority of wealthy investors. They are not at all interested in providing the service that the public should expect. So let’s reverse the trend of the last thirty years and put back these essential services into the hands of the paying customer.

Luther Sloan wrote:Parents in California are being told they can't home school their kids unless they have teaching credentials. Justices say parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children. Instead, the court says, the law requires parents to send their children to a full time public or private school or have them be taught by accredited tutors at home. That means more than 166,000 children are being truants and their parents are at risk of legal prosecution, with fines and even the removal of kids from the home a possibility. The ruling was applauded by California's teachers unions, but opponents say California is now the only state in the union to deny parents the right to teach their children at home.

From THIS thread.

The government has failed in its attempt to educate our children, just look at the results, most high school grads can't even do simple math or have good English skills. So now "they" want to restrict families who care about their children's education in CA...Sure sounds like a socialist society to me...And as CA tends to pass laws that the U.S. later passes as a whole.

Goliath wrote:Sure sounds like a socialist society to me

I may have to disagree there (though not with the suggestion that we are our own worst enemy). it appears to me that this is just another case of CAPITALISM gone awry..... It costs money to send your child to school, when you home school, you eliminate that "Capital" to the Public (and Private) School sectors, therein. It looks as though Money is more important to the Government of California, than the education of their children. "Don't send your child to school??? Pay the Fines!!!" See??? All about money.

Nice to see that old threads are coming alive!

Pennsylvania has a major problem with Public Education, as many states do from the way it looks. This definitely is not a factor of "America Becoming Its Own Worst Enemy' however. I think the real problem behind our public education system lies within the teachers themselves. Because they have these dumb Teacher's Unions, they hide behind them and think that they do not have to do their job the way they should, and just sit there and collect an outrageous paycheck...have off for three months (at least) through the year, and then retire when they feel that they "cant take it anymore". Teachers, young and old, in this country don't care about their profession, and do not care about who it affects. Why...I don't have a clue. Just come to the school district(s) where I live and you will see what I'm talking about. I do not know if this is the same for the rest of the country.

America is not becoming its own worst enemy because of it's education system. America is becoming its own worst enemy because, America is not staying in America...America is voting unqualified persons into office...America does not care about its future as a nation.

The free market rule book is being thrown out of the window, we can only hope that it is recovered when things improve in the economy.

Spazz Maticus wrote:The free market rule book is being thrown out of the window, we can only hope that it is recovered when things improve in the economy.

I doubt it. Someone in Wall Street ate it a couple months ago when they couldn't afford lunch money.

General Forestry wrote:I doubt it. Someone in Wall Street ate it a couple months ago when they couldn't afford lunch money.

HAHA

Here is something to add to the topic. Is America's economy really failing because of Big Time investors, banks, firms and what not? Or is really failing because of the choices that (we) the consumers have made? Think about it, there are so many items which we have in our homes or drive to work everyday which are an investment within the outside countries which they were made in or the company who owns the product-line is located. China, Japan, India, etc. Did the domestic businesses really cause the collapse, or did the consumers?

AmericanPride wrote:Did the domestic businesses really cause the collapse, or did the consumers?

Now, there is an issue. The problem I think is the Unions making U.S. made products too expensive for the average consumer. Since the products are so expensive, the companies have to cut costs, most of the time by laying people off or moving overseas.

As far as caring where the company is based, most "American companies" employ less Americans than foreign companies that make the same product, particularly true when you compare U.S. and Japanese auto makers. (and just to support this further, Nissan just announced it was laying off 20,000 workers, but that none would be U.S. workers. On the other hand, GM announced today it is laying off 10,000 workers, with 3,400 U.S. workers, or 12% of GM’s U.S. salaried work force, being part of that. Yet GM is the one our tax dollars go to because they are a "U.S. company".)

Maximus the Destroyer wrote:
On the other hand, GM announced today it is laying off 10,000 workers, with 3,400 U.S. workers, or 12% of GM’s U.S. salaried work force, being part of that. Yet GM is the one our tax dollars go to because they are a "U.S. company".)

By all accounts things have got so bad that in Texas it is only possible to buy one German manufactured car...

A friend of mine arrived back from Houston and told me that at every showroom he entered, the Salesman came up to him; put out his hand and said "Audi".

(OK I know it's a rotten joke)