Subsidized everything

[tedteague]

The EU recently announced it will begin subsidizing vacations. What's next?

[tedteague]

Car insurance?

[steelish]

Why stop at anything like that?

What makes you "happy"?
Is it large screen tvs?
Subsidize!
Is it motorhomes with slide-outs so you can travel the country in style?
Subsidize!
Is it hot rod cars?
Subsidize!
Is it a 3,000 sq ft home?
Subsidize!

What the hell is this country coming to?

[denuseri]

Vibrators? lol

[tedteague]

hookers!!??

[denuseri]

Trips to lesbian themed bondage strip clubs?

[tedteague]

how about just bondage lesbian submissives?

[fetishdj]

I'd vote for that (and bondage Dominants as well :) )

[DuncanONeil]

You forgot my Electra Glide!!


Why stop at anything like that?

What makes you "happy"?
Is it large screen tvs?
Subsidize!
Is it motorhomes with slide-outs so you can travel the country in style?
Subsidize!
Is it hot rod cars?
Subsidize!
Is it a 3,000 sq ft home?
Subsidize!

What the hell is this country coming to?

[DuncanONeil]

how about just bondage lesbian submissives?

Hey no discrimination here! Submissive for everyone!

[steelish]

If EVERYTHING is going to be subsidized, how about a nice, modest home with a built-in secret dungeon? That sounds lovely.

[Lion]

I can go for that ^

[grinner666]

Why stop at anything like that?

What makes you "happy"?
Is it large screen tvs?
Subsidize!
Is it motorhomes with slide-outs so you can travel the country in style?
Subsidize!
Is it hot rod cars?
Subsidize!
Is it a 3,000 sq ft home?
Subsidize!

What the hell is this country coming to?

Since your profile doesn't really specify I must ASSUME that when you say your location is "The Southeast" you mean the southeastern US and NOT Southeast Asia . . . but I'll go with that assumption and simply ask what in the world you think a rumor about subsidies in the EU has to do with "this country"???

[lucy]

The EU recently announced it will begin subsidizing vacations. What's next?
The EU has done that for a long time already by pumping loads of money for touristic infrastructure projects into Greece, Spain, Portugal, Southern Italy asf aso...

[steelish]

Since your profile doesn't really specify I must ASSUME that when you say your location is "The Southeast" you mean the southeastern US and NOT Southeast Asia . . . but I'll go with that assumption and simply ask what in the world you think a rumor about subsidies in the EU has to do with "this country"???

My brain was thinking "world". My fingers typed "country"

So sorry. (I never even noticed until you pointed it out)

[DuncanONeil]

If EVERYTHING is going to be subsidized, how about a nice, modest home with a built-in secret dungeon? That sounds lovely.


Can I come over and play?

[DuncanONeil]

Because the current power structure in the US thinks we should be more like Europe!


Since your profile doesn't really specify I must ASSUME that when you say your location is "The Southeast" you mean the southeastern US and NOT Southeast Asia . . . but I'll go with that assumption and simply ask what in the world you think a rumor about subsidies in the EU has to do with "this country"???

[grinner666]

Because the current power structure in the US thinks we should be more like Europe!

*yawns*

"More like Europe" is a null term. Europe consists of over two dozen countries, all of which have different governments, laws and ways of doing business.

But if what you mean is that every worker gets SIX WEEKS OF PAID VACATION, with the accompanying loss of stress and early heart attacks and strokes that involves, then SIGN ME UP FOR THE FUCKING EUROPEAN UNION!!!

EVERY European nation has higher taxes than the US, but then nearly every nation on earth has higher taxes than the US. But what's REALLY interesting is that nearly every other nation in the world has a lower incidence of heart attacks than the United States.

Frankly, if it comes to a choice between paying half (or even more) of my wages in taxes and getting six weeks of vacation every year, with government paid healthcare and retirement that beats the FUCK out of social security, or lower taxes, I'll gladly pay the higher taxes. You CAN NOT place a price on health and peace of mind.

And for those of you who don't want to pay those horrible taxes for your "economic freedom," please remember that even in the Land of the (not so economically) Free, you STILL did nothing but work for taxes this year until April 9, you got no vacation until you'd been working at least a year, very likely got no or very little health insurance, and probably still believe in the tooth fairy.

Here's the thing: if you believe your government is going to protect you without cost, you're living in a fantasy world. If you understand that government protection costs but STILL don't want to pay for those costs, then you're one of the deluded millions who believes, despite all evidence to the contrary, that you're going to be a millionaire someday and you've got to protect yourself against that vague and highly unlikely possibility.

Get over it. You're NOT going to be a millionaire someday. And if, by some miracle, you are, you'll be able to afford the taxes on your millions without feeling the pinch that the poor fucker working for minimum wage feels every week. The Rethuglicans rely on your belief that you'll someday be where they are, even though you never will.

[DuncanONeil]

*yawns*

"More like Europe" is a null term. Europe consists of over two dozen countries, all of which have different governments, laws and ways of doing business.

And your point is what? virtually all of them are operating from the same play book. Its not working and yet that is what some people wish to see as the manner of conducting the nation here.


But if what you mean is that every worker gets SIX WEEKS OF PAID VACATION, with the accompanying loss of stress and early heart attacks and strokes that involves, then SIGN ME UP FOR THE FUCKING EUROPEAN UNION!!!


If such a system is so desirable you can easily sign yourself up for that system. All it would take would be a little train or boat trip. One way of course!


EVERY European nation has higher taxes than the US, but then nearly every nation on earth has higher taxes than the US. But what's REALLY interesting is that nearly every other nation in the world has a lower incidence of heart attacks than the United States.

High taxes are not a measure of a successful country. As far as the heart attack rates I have heard that said myself. But what do we find in the data? The WHO has a report, which I suspect you will dismiss since it is not by country, that does not provide such a clear cut position. It does divide the world by major groupings; Africa, The Americas, South-East Asia, Europe, Eastern Med, and Western Pacific. Now I know the first complaint will be lumping the Americas together but even then the rates in the WHO report are within less than 5 points of other reports of US specific data. That being said the highest rate of cardiovascular deaths is in Europe at .56% or 561 per 100,000. for the other regions the numbers are as follows;

Africa - 154
The Americas - 226
SE Asia - 453
Eastern Med - 214
Western Pacific - 222

It seems that two regions of the world beat us in this unenviable statistic and two others are nearly the same.


Frankly, if it comes to a choice between paying half (or even more) of my wages in taxes and getting six weeks of vacation every year, with government paid healthcare and retirement that beats the FUCK out of social security, or lower taxes, I'll gladly pay the higher taxes. You CAN NOT place a price on health and peace of mind.

"You CAN NOT place a price on health and peace of mind. " But that is exactly what you are doing when you let the Government make those decisions for you. Whether you like their decisions or not you have no choice once you surrender. That same peace of mind you seek can come from your own choices in insurance, savings, or investments.


And for those of you who don't want to pay those horrible taxes for your "economic freedom," please remember that even in the Land of the (not so economically) Free, you STILL did nothing but work for taxes this year until April 9, you got no vacation until you'd been working at least a year, very likely got no or very little health insurance, and probably still believe in the tooth fairy.

The last bit there was uncalled for and a bit demeaning! Consider what you have expressed a willingness to do just a little bit above this paragraph. Work for the Government until at least June 30 instead of working to find a way to get more of the money that you work for into your own pocket rather than somebody elses' pocket. There is such a plan that I favor and would like to see as it does a great deal for the economy, without Government intervention.


Here's the thing: if you believe your government is going to protect you without cost, you're living in a fantasy world. If you understand that government protection costs but STILL don't want to pay for those costs, then you're one of the deluded millions who believes, despite all evidence to the contrary, that you're going to be a millionaire someday and you've got to protect yourself against that vague and highly unlikely possibility.

The true question is not "protection" but "protection from what"! Do you believe it is the Governments job to protect you from yourself? That is much of what people are asking for and virtually all that the Government is offering. While at the same time letting sit fallow the very things that the Government is actually directed to do.
I do not need the Government to establish for me how many miles I must get to a gallon of gas. Nor how much salt I can consume, how many eggs, how much bacon, how many time I can go to McDonalds, how much exercise I must accomplish, or how. Yes Government protection costs! But more often that not the Government seeks to lower the funds spent on defense, be it the Military or INS & ICE.
To say that "to be a millionaire someday" is a "vague and highly unlikely possibility" is to deny that the USA is the Land of Opportunity!


Get over it. You're NOT going to be a millionaire someday. And if, by some miracle, you are, you'll be able to afford the taxes on your millions without feeling the pinch that the poor fucker working for minimum wage feels every week. The Rethuglicans rely on your belief that you'll someday be where they are, even though you never will.

You honestly believe, and can say with a straight face, that somehow a tax rate of 2.99% on $15,000 hurts more than a tax rate of 21.46% on $1,040,000. I don't think so! In the former that is my mortgage payment in the latter it is two cars or a really nice Harley! Or look at it another way the 2.99% is 13 meals out I'd have to pass on. Even at the most expensive meal I bought my wife and I the latter would be 171 outings. By any practical measure the claim is not supported that our current tax structure hurts the lesser in favor of the greater.

[Thorne]

You honestly believe, and can say with a straight face, that somehow a tax rate of 2.99% on $15,000 hurts more than a tax rate of 21.46% on $1,040,000. I don't think so! In the former that is my mortgage payment in the latter it is two cars or a really nice Harley! Or look at it another way the 2.99% is 13 meals out I'd have to pass on. Even at the most expensive meal I bought my wife and I the latter would be 171 outings. By any practical measure the claim is not supported that our current tax structure hurts the lesser in favor of the greater.
Sorry Duncan, but I have to argue with your numbers here. The question is not how much someone is paying in taxes but how much does he have left AFTER taxes.

The blue collar guy making $15000 per year will have only $14550 left after paying his 2.99%, but the millionaire will still have $816816 left. A very big difference. Which would you rather have?

[DuncanONeil]

The dollars taken away by the Government nor the dollars remaning after the Government has taken away a portion is not germane. Would you rather have 97% of your salary remaining or 79%.
To say that the larger dollar figure is better just because it is bigger is essentially saying that money equals happiness. We know that is not true. Further such a simplistic statement ignores a significant number of other issues. For Example Al Gore falls into the second category under discussion here and we know he has been spending as much as 20 other homes in his neighborhood for electricity alone.
If you remember in my post I related the two different tax figures to a situation outside of either person, I chose myself, and in one case it is a mortgage payment in the other two cars that are confiscated for taxes.

The point is that you think that paying a greater share of the tax burden is FAIR if you have more money and paying the same rate is somehow unfair. That implies the only way you would be happy is if Mr Rich Person after paying his tax bill had $14550 left. I on the other hand believe that paying the same rate is fair.
Having said that I feel compelled to state that I favor the truly voluntary tax called FairTax over what we have and any Government driven fixing thereof. And any VAT tax is even worse than the awful system currently existing.


Sorry Duncan, but I have to argue with your numbers here. The question is not how much someone is paying in taxes but how much does he have left AFTER taxes.

The blue collar guy making $15000 per year will have only $14550 left after paying his 2.99%, but the millionaire will still have $816816 left. A very big difference. Which would you rather have?

[Thorne]

The point is that you think that paying a greater share of the tax burden is FAIR if you have more money and paying the same rate is somehow unfair. That implies the only way you would be happy is if Mr Rich Person after paying his tax bill had $14550 left. I on the other hand believe that paying the same rate is fair.
That's not my point at all. The government requires a certain amount of money to function. Naturally, the first priority should be to trim down that necessity to the bare minimums. But once that is done a certain amount of needed money will remain. Obviously that money will have to be brought in by taxes, of one sort or another.

Now according to you, it's only fair to make everyone pay the same percentage. So let's assume for simplicity's sake that the government determines that, in order to balance their budget, everyone will have to pay 15% of their earnings in taxes. What does this mean? Well, the man making $1 million will pay $150K in taxes. Wow! A lot of money. But that still leaves him with $850K of discretionary income. Of course, having to pay $100 K for the mortgage on his 12 bedroom mansion, and another $100K for his brand new Rolls, will eat into that somewhat, too. He might have to cut his Hawaiian vacation down to only two weeks! And he and his family can't afford to eat out ... more than 4 or 5 times a week. Such hardship!

Meanwhile, we have our other man making $20K, working 2 jobs. He'll be left with a whopping $17,500 dollars. Hell, anybody can get by on that! So what if his kids can't go to private schools? So what if they have to cram a family of 6 into a two-bedroom, 1½ bath flat? So what if they can only buy a used car every five or six years, at best? As long as he's paying the same rate, everything will be fine!

No, my point is that the wealthier man can afford to pay a larger share of the tax burden, and because of his wealth will reap more benefits from the infrastructure those taxes pay for. The poor don't much care about maintaining the interstate, or building better airports, or keeping the harbors running properly. They can't afford to use those facilities anyway.

If you drop our poor working man's taxes down to only, say, 2% he'll end up paying only $400 in taxes. While still painful for him, he can probably handle that. His family might not eat steak, but it won't hurt them too badly. How much must our rich man pay to make up for that? An extra $2100, or 15.2% TOTAL. Holy cow! That just might break the bank!

Yes, I realize it's not quite that simple, there being so many more poor people than rich. But the point is the same. The more money you make the more you tend to benefit from the money the government spends, either directly or indirectly, so you pay more taxes. And there is less of a burden on the poor.

[DuncanONeil]

The fact that I support a change in the tax system is of no consequence?
The current tax system is unfair, not for the reasons that you state.
The current tax system punishes success.
If success is punished why try to succeed? If the reverse were true perhaps more work work for success.
I favor a tax system that is truly voluntary. Increases investment in the nation. Brings fresh capital to the country. Allows people all of the money they work for to be theirs. Provides the very kind of progression in taxation that social engineers desire. Increases the tax base.

By the way, you did not provide a different understanding of the position you stated in your previous.


That's not my point at all. The government requires a certain amount of money to function. Naturally, the first priority should be to trim down that necessity to the bare minimums. But once that is done a certain amount of needed money will remain. Obviously that money will have to be brought in by taxes, of one sort or another.

Now according to you, it's only fair to make everyone pay the same percentage. So let's assume for simplicity's sake that the government determines that, in order to balance their budget, everyone will have to pay 15% of their earnings in taxes. What does this mean? Well, the man making $1 million will pay $150K in taxes. Wow! A lot of money. But that still leaves him with $850K of discretionary income. Of course, having to pay $100 K for the mortgage on his 12 bedroom mansion, and another $100K for his brand new Rolls, will eat into that somewhat, too. He might have to cut his Hawaiian vacation down to only two weeks! And he and his family can't afford to eat out ... more than 4 or 5 times a week. Such hardship!

Meanwhile, we have our other man making $20K, working 2 jobs. He'll be left with a whopping $17,500 dollars. Hell, anybody can get by on that! So what if his kids can't go to private schools? So what if they have to cram a family of 6 into a two-bedroom, 1½ bath flat? So what if they can only buy a used car every five or six years, at best? As long as he's paying the same rate, everything will be fine!

No, my point is that the wealthier man can afford to pay a larger share of the tax burden, and because of his wealth will reap more benefits from the infrastructure those taxes pay for. The poor don't much care about maintaining the interstate, or building better airports, or keeping the harbors running properly. They can't afford to use those facilities anyway.

If you drop our poor working man's taxes down to only, say, 2% he'll end up paying only $400 in taxes. While still painful for him, he can probably handle that. His family might not eat steak, but it won't hurt them too badly. How much must our rich man pay to make up for that? An extra $2100, or 15.2% TOTAL. Holy cow! That just might break the bank!

Yes, I realize it's not quite that simple, there being so many more poor people than rich. But the point is the same. The more money you make the more you tend to benefit from the money the government spends, either directly or indirectly, so you pay more taxes. And there is less of a burden on the poor.

[Thorne]

The fact that I support a change in the tax system is of no consequence?
I don't think I said that, and I know I didn't mean that, but if I implied that anywhere it was completely unintentional.


The current tax system is unfair, not for the reasons that you state.
The current tax system punishes success.
Again, a matter of interpretation. I don't see it as punishing success so much as asking those who can afford it to shoulder a larger share of the burden. Punishing success would imply that everyone would be left with the same amount of money after taxes. Or regulating salaries so that everyone is paid the same, regardless of the job they do. When you set two men to digging a ditch, you can't expect the skinny 18 year old who's never held a shovel to be able to dig the same amount as the 20 year veteran who makes pro wrestlers look like little boys.


I favor a tax system that is truly voluntary. Increases investment in the nation. Brings fresh capital to the country. Allows people all of the money they work for to be theirs. Provides the very kind of progression in taxation that social engineers desire. Increases the tax base.
Again, this is a matter of interpretation. I don't see the tax system we have as being the ultimate problem. Yes, reform is needed. Take out some of the perks that allow the rich to avoid paying their fair share, close the loopholes that let people hide their wealth without penalty. But most of all, change the way the government spends the tax money. Eliminate the waste, penalize the cheaters and trim the budget. Then, when the ability is there to lower the taxes, lower them in the same proportion as they are collected, with the greatest savings going to those who pay the most.


By the way, you did not provide a different understanding of the position you stated in your previous.
I don't understand what you mean, here.

[DuncanONeil]

I don't think I said that, and I know I didn't mean that, but if I implied that anywhere it was completely unintentional.

I was not trying to imply that you actually said. Perhaps more of a feeling that something I said was missued.



Again, a matter of interpretation. I don't see it as punishing success so much as asking those who can afford it to shoulder a larger share of the burden. Punishing success would imply that everyone would be left with the same amount of money after taxes. Or regulating salaries so that everyone is paid the same, regardless of the job they do. When you set two men to digging a ditch, you can't expect the skinny 18 year old who's never held a shovel to be able to dig the same amount as the 20 year veteran who makes pro wrestlers look like little boys.

Shoulder a larger share? Well then we need to discuss "share"! The presumption is that you are speaking of percent of income. Even that falls far short of "sharing the burden" when such a huge portion of the people pay nothing. To tell people that they must pay one-third or more of their income in order that another huge group may be allowed to pay nothing is not sharing a burden but taking on a burden. Should everyone be paying the same rate of tax the wealthy would still be paying more of the tax. But that is deemed as unfair since, somehow paying the same rate is unfair as they make more.
You do not think it is punishing to ask certain people to pay, I can't make a comparison to the lowest rate, some three and a half times that of those near the bottom? I do agree that leaving everyone with the same sum after taxes, or adjusting all pay to be equivalent is stupid.



Again, this is a matter of interpretation. I don't see the tax system we have as being the ultimate problem. Yes, reform is needed. Take out some of the perks that allow the rich to avoid paying their fair share, close the loopholes that let people hide their wealth without penalty. But most of all, change the way the government spends the tax money. Eliminate the waste, penalize the cheaters and trim the budget. Then, when the ability is there to lower the taxes, lower them in the same proportion as they are collected, with the greatest savings going to those who pay the most.

Agreed! The Government is not well equipped to determine what is the proper use of the Nation's money. Or even the true mission of the Government itself!
But again we have reference to "paying their fair share". Would it not be fair if all tax was truly voluntary? Would it not be fair if all taxes were applied under the exact same set of rules? Some of those loopholes have the same cache as Social Security, mortgage interest for example.
"(L)ower the taxes, lower them in the same proportion as they are collected, with the greatest savings going to those who pay the most." The people, well certain groups, will not allow that. Any reduction does automatically go to those that pay the most. But the special interests run out their goon squads to decry the tax cuts "for the rich", in spite of the fact that they pay most of the tax.

I still say that the FairTax will solve all of these problems, save perhaps the spendthrift nature of Congress. But even there they can not hide any proposed tax increase, be it some estoric fee or tax on an "evil" company or change in the deductions and exemptions. Everyone will know about the increase and who is responsible.



I don't understand what you mean, here.

I suppose just another way of saying that you said the same thing.

[Cathryn Blackthorne]

Because the current power structure in the US thinks we should be more like Europe!

Well, some of us living in the US agree. Not everyone buys into the propaganda of slogans like: "America is the greatest country in the world," and believe it's possible things here could do with change/improvement.

[steelish]

Well, some of us living in the US agree. Not everyone buys into the propaganda of slogans like: "America is the greatest country in the world," and believe it's possible things here could do with change/improvement.

See, this is what I've never understood. America is unique among countries. Why should it change? To use your exact words; "There are some of us living in the US" who want it to be as the Founding Fathers intended. Why can't it be that and those who don't like it can move? After all, there are plenty of other nations to choose from.

For example, if you specifically want a Ford Expedition, you go buy a Ford Expedition...you don't buy a Ford F250, put a topper on it and pretend it's a Ford Expedition.

[fetishdj]

Good god, you don't want to be in Europe... Anyway, I thought Europe was trying desperately to turn itself into 'the United states of Europe'.

You could always rejoin the UK. I am sure we'll have you back. We'll even let you keep your president as some form of official colonial governer :)

Seriously, I think the US constitution and the 'ideals of the founding fathers' are as open to interpretation as many religious texts. I have seen many use them as defence for actions which I am sure are against the ideals as I understand them. This is part of the problem. Everyone in America follows THE American dream and THE ideals of the founding fathers but actually they are only following THEIR versions of that which disagree with all the other interpretations.

One thing I feel needs to be asked... as a hypothetical exercise, if the American constitution were to be rewritten today - completely and entirely from scratch, using the modern political and international set up as it is - how much of it would be different? Which amendments would still be in place, which would be changed and which would be removed altogether as entirely pointless. I ask because I read something about the Magna Carta recently (about the closest we have to a written constitution...) which stated that pretty much all of it is now obsolete.

[Thorne]

You could always rejoin the UK. I am sure we'll have you back. We'll even let you keep your president as some form of official colonial governer :)
ANOTHER Brit wanting the colonies back! Get over it guys. We're here to stay. ;)


Seriously, I think the US constitution and the 'ideals of the founding fathers' are as open to interpretation as many religious texts. I have seen many use them as defence for actions which I am sure are against the ideals as I understand them. This is part of the problem.
Yes, it is a problem, and many have perverted the spirit of the Constitution while paying lip-service to its words. That's why interpretation of the Constitution lies in the hands of the Supreme Court. Theoretically at least, there should be enough intelligence among those 9 paragons of the law to keep us at least close to both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution.


One thing I feel needs to be asked... as a hypothetical exercise, if the American constitution were to be rewritten today - completely and entirely from scratch, using the modern political and international set up as it is - how much of it would be different?
Sadly, if there were a need to rewrite the Constitution I fear it would never get done. There are damned few politicians in this country with the brains or the guts to set aside their own petty desires for the good of the country. It would split the country into half-a-dozen feuding nation-states, turning us into the equivalent of 19th century Europe, with 21st century weapons. It would be the end of the United States of America.

[fetishdj]

ANOTHER Brit wanting the colonies back! Get over it guys. We're here to stay. ;)


You can stay where you wish... all that would change is who you pay your taxes to :)



Yes, it is a problem, and many have perverted the spirit of the Constitution while paying lip-service to its words. That's why interpretation of the Constitution lies in the hands of the Supreme Court. Theoretically at least, there should be enough intelligence among those 9 paragons of the law to keep us at least close to both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution.


Yes, the supreme court should keep things in balance.

Of course this is something we can blame the Irish for, you know... they had a legal system based on lawyers long before any other culture in Europe :)



Sadly, if there were a need to rewrite the Constitution I fear it would never get done. There are damned few politicians in this country with the brains or the guts to set aside their own petty desires for the good of the country. It would split the country into half-a-dozen feuding nation-states, turning us into the equivalent of 19th century Europe, with 21st century weapons. It would be the end of the United States of America.

So, are you arguing that you need an external threat (i.e an oppresive monarchy) to force the politicians to work together sufficiently to acheive something like the American constitution (which was an amazing achievement for its time)?

I do wonder sometimes if the various member states of the US remember that it was not all that long ago (late 19th century for many) when they were still independent 'countries' rather than part of the union. I know it is common for outsiders to think that 'the USA' is one country rather than a federal organisation of seperate states (with thier own laws) but is this attitude common in the US as well?

[Thorne]

So, are you arguing that you need an external threat (i.e an oppresive monarchy) to force the politicians to work together sufficiently to acheive something like the American constitution (which was an amazing achievement for its time)?
No, what I'm saying is that I doubt modern politicians, or businessmen as most of our founders were, could establish any kind of legal system which even theoretically made them no better than the average man on the street in the eyes of the law. The Constitution was indeed an amazing achievement, one which I don't think modern men could even approach.


I do wonder sometimes if the various member states of the US remember that it was not all that long ago (late 19th century for many) when they were still independent 'countries' rather than part of the union. I know it is common for outsiders to think that 'the USA' is one country rather than a federal organisation of seperate states (with thier own laws) but is this attitude common in the US as well?
While this is theoretically, and even constitutionally, true, in reality the federal government has usurped many of the states' rights over the years, generally for seemingly good reasons, at least at the time. For the most part this has been a good thing, making us a more united country and far more powerful in world politics. Which allowed the US to pull British butts from the fires of two German wars, after all. :)

[fetishdj]

While this is theoretically, and even constitutionally, true, in reality the federal government has usurped many of the states' rights over the years, generally for seemingly good reasons, at least at the time. For the most part this has been a good thing, making us a more united country and far more powerful in world politics. Which allowed the US to pull British butts from the fires of two German wars, after all. :)

Eventually... :)

I think the period was one of idealism in politics. The American revolution, the French revolution, the Jacobin uprisings in the UK (Tolpuddle, Peterloo), even the start of communism (I think I remember Marx writing his famously misunderstood book about this time...). I think everyone seemed to have just got bored of monarchy all at the same time :) I agree that I don't think you will get the same idealism now.

I think Europe's problems at the moment is that they are not states as the American states are/were but countries that are far more different and older and stubborn. Most of whom have ruled over most of the others at some point or other. The UKs alliance with France, for example, is very recent and we have been at war with them far longer than we have ever been at peace. So we'll never get that unity, at least not for a long while.

[Thorne]

I think the period was one of idealism in politics. The American revolution, the French revolution, the Jacobin uprisings in the UK (Tolpuddle, Peterloo), even the start of communism (I think I remember Marx writing his famously misunderstood book about this time...). I think everyone seemed to have just got bored of monarchy all at the same time :) I agree that I don't think you will get the same idealism now.
I think a big part of it was a growing understanding that nobles were not the be all and end all of life. With more and more books available to even the common people, more people learning to read and gain an education, the early beginnings of the industrial revolution supplying jobs, all conspired to break the nobles' hold on the minds of their subjects and allow those subjects to believe they really could be free.


I think Europe's problems at the moment is that they are not states as the American states are/were but countries that are far more different and older and stubborn. Most of whom have ruled over most of the others at some point or other. The UKs alliance with France, for example, is very recent and we have been at war with them far longer than we have ever been at peace. So we'll never get that unity, at least not for a long while.
I agree, it's going to be a long road before there can be any hope of real unity, but the seeds have been planted and hopefully they will take root and grow. The best thing that can happen to mankind at this time would be for people to realize that centuries-old feuds between now mostly defunct noble houses are no longer relevant and should be forgotten.

I won't hold my breath, though.

[TantricSoul]

See, this is what I've never understood. America is unique among countries. Why should it change? To use your exact words; "There are some of us living in the US" who want it to be as the Founding Fathers intended. Why can't it be that and those who don't like it can move? After all, there are plenty of other nations to choose from.


Every country is unique and everything changes ... no exceptions ... and what the founding fathers intended over two hundred years ago ... well a majority of that just isn't relevant to today's world.

[DuncanONeil]

Well, some of us living in the US agree. Not everyone buys into the propaganda of slogans like: "America is the greatest country in the world," and believe it's possible things here could do with change/improvement.


It may seem like a trite question, and it is a question. But if you do not think America is the greatest country in the world why not live in one you think is the greatest?

Change and improvement can always occur. And that is usually a good thing. But change is not always an improvement. The desire to change to be more like European countries when the very policies that are desired to be co-opted have brought said countries to near failure. Why would you want to go the route of failure??

[DuncanONeil]

Rewritten? Today? With Progressives in charge that is easy. The document would 180 degrees off from its current policies. Rights would accrue to the Government and the citizenry would be restricted!


Good god, you don't want to be in Europe... Anyway, I thought Europe was trying desperately to turn itself into 'the United states of Europe'.

You could always rejoin the UK. I am sure we'll have you back. We'll even let you keep your president as some form of official colonial governer :)

Seriously, I think the US constitution and the 'ideals of the founding fathers' are as open to interpretation as many religious texts. I have seen many use them as defence for actions which I am sure are against the ideals as I understand them. This is part of the problem. Everyone in America follows THE American dream and THE ideals of the founding fathers but actually they are only following THEIR versions of that which disagree with all the other interpretations.

One thing I feel needs to be asked... as a hypothetical exercise, if the American constitution were to be rewritten today - completely and entirely from scratch, using the modern political and international set up as it is - how much of it would be different? Which amendments would still be in place, which would be changed and which would be removed altogether as entirely pointless. I ask because I read something about the Magna Carta recently (about the closest we have to a written constitution...) which stated that pretty much all of it is now obsolete.

[DuncanONeil]

Every country is unique and everything changes ... no exceptions ... and what the founding fathers intended over two hundred years ago ... well a majority of that just isn't relevant to today's world.


Which parts do you think those are?

[tedteague]

*yawns*

"More like Europe" is a null term. Europe consists of over two dozen countries, all of which have different governments, laws and ways of doing business.

But if what you mean is that every worker gets SIX WEEKS OF PAID VACATION, with the accompanying loss of stress and early heart attacks and strokes that involves, then SIGN ME UP FOR THE FUCKING EUROPEAN UNION!!!

EVERY European nation has higher taxes than the US, but then nearly every nation on earth has higher taxes than the US. But what's REALLY interesting is that nearly every other nation in the world has a lower incidence of heart attacks than the United States.

Frankly, if it comes to a choice between paying half (or even more) of my wages in taxes and getting six weeks of vacation every year, with government paid healthcare and retirement that beats the FUCK out of social security, or lower taxes, I'll gladly pay the higher taxes. You CAN NOT place a price on health and peace of mind.

And for those of you who don't want to pay those horrible taxes for your "economic freedom," please remember that even in the Land of the (not so economically) Free, you STILL did nothing but work for taxes this year until April 9, you got no vacation until you'd been working at least a year, very likely got no or very little health insurance, and probably still believe in the tooth fairy.

Here's the thing: if you believe your government is going to protect you without cost, you're living in a fantasy world. If you understand that government protection costs but STILL don't want to pay for those costs, then you're one of the deluded millions who believes, despite all evidence to the contrary, that you're going to be a millionaire someday and you've got to protect yourself against that vague and highly unlikely possibility.

Get over it. You're NOT going to be a millionaire someday. And if, by some miracle, you are, you'll be able to afford the taxes on your millions without feeling the pinch that the poor fucker working for minimum wage feels every week. The Rethuglicans rely on your belief that you'll someday be where they are, even though you never will.




false, europe is not a collection of different countries all with their own way of doing things. it is a UNION. and while local governments may be elected on their own, western europe is much more like the US, the nation is europe, the state/province/territories are italy, france, ect al

[tedteague]

I don't think I said that, and I know I didn't mean that, but if I implied that anywhere it was completely unintentional.


Again, a matter of interpretation. I don't see it as punishing success so much as asking those who can afford it to shoulder a larger share of the burden. Punishing success would imply that everyone would be left with the same amount of money after taxes. Or regulating salaries so that everyone is paid the same, regardless of the job they do. When you set two men to digging a ditch, you can't expect the skinny 18 year old who's never held a shovel to be able to dig the same amount as the 20 year veteran who makes pro wrestlers look like little boys.


Again, this is a matter of interpretation. I don't see the tax system we have as being the ultimate problem. Yes, reform is needed. Take out some of the perks that allow the rich to avoid paying their fair share, close the loopholes that let people hide their wealth without penalty. But most of all, change the way the government spends the tax money. Eliminate the waste, penalize the cheaters and trim the budget. Then, when the ability is there to lower the taxes, lower them in the same proportion as they are collected, with the greatest savings going to those who pay the most.


I don't understand what you mean, here.


what about the wealthy that fund nearly everything? this picturesque america of everyones tax dollars pitching in is not true. the bottom 30% of the country (in income) gets MORE back than they PAID. Fair isnt "everyone should suffer from taxes equally" its "everyone should pay the exact same percentage of their income." The wealthy who are paying more are getting the least back from the government. dont bite the hand that feeds, its that same mentality that made john galt leave

[tedteague]

See, this is what I've never understood. America is unique among countries. Why should it change? To use your exact words; "There are some of us living in the US" who want it to be as the Founding Fathers intended. Why can't it be that and those who don't like it can move? After all, there are plenty of other nations to choose from.

For example, if you specifically want a Ford Expedition, you go buy a Ford Expedition...you don't buy a Ford F250, put a topper on it and pretend it's a Ford Expedition.

Which founding father? They collectively agreed on very little

[tedteague]

[QUOTE=fetishdj;874925]Eventually... :)

I think the period was one of idealism in politics. The American revolution, the French revolution, the Jacobin uprisings in the UK (Tolpuddle, Peterloo), even the start of communism (I think I remember Marx writing his famously misunderstood book about this time

marx wrote in the 1840s

[fetishdj]

false, europe is not a collection of different countries all with their own way of doing things. it is a UNION. and while local governments may be elected on their own, western europe is much more like the US, the nation is europe, the state/province/territories are italy, france, ect al

Not at all. The EU is actually less formal than that. The nation is not Europe at all as each of the member states still see themselves as 'nations'. It is more of a tight alliance. The 'president' of the EU, for example, is not even elected nor do they have any real power other than as a figurehead. Instead, the heads of state (or the Prime Minister in the case of UK, as the PM is not the head of state he is only the representative of the head of state) of EU members rotate the presidential seat amongst themselves.

The move is more towards a federal state system but, beyond a common currency (which at least one member does not currently follow and several member states are now regretting joining due to the massive economical problems it has caused because of the initial massive differences in the values of the original currencies) and some EU laws and regulations (mainly linked to environmental issues, trade agreements and weights and measures) the countries are still largely independent. We don't pay taxes to the EU directly (though each member pays for the upkeep of the bureaucracy of the system), many countries conveniently ignore some of the laws of the EU (which makes them unlike the federal laws of the US which are stringently enforced) and there is a lot of squabbling between countries. I suspect that this is because, unlike the the US, we have had neither a war of independence nor a civil war to unify us under one banner (cos there is nothing like a common external threat to make even warring neighbours band together in the long term...) plus the EU has not been around as long as the US and was initially a set of trade agreements established post WWII with no formal unification until much later.

[steelish]

Which founding father? They collectively agreed on very little

They collectively wrote the Constitution. I would say they agreed on that. (They did, after all, sign the document)

[IAN 2411]

The EU recently announced it will begin subsidizing vacations. What's next?

Well nothing surprises me about the EU, let’s see what have we had from the European intelligence bank, the bananas from Africa had to be sent back if they never had the correct curve on them. [I suppose that is only fair] LMFAO.

The cucumbers that had too many twists and had to be thrown away because they were hard to slice when making a salad, good thing too I don’t like cucumbers.

Eggs that are to big have to be thrown out and destroyed, because new boxes would have to be produced to carry them producing more waste. There has to be a hidden logic there somewhere. And what about the poor chickens asses that laid them should they have been sewn up?
All signs in the UK had to be converted to KPH because it was confusing to the rest of Europe, good because when I was over there for two years theirs were confusing to me. At least the UK government in the last week has seen sense and told them to back off.


Because the current power structure in the US thinks we should be more like Europe!

Looking at the load of crap Europe is throwing out over the past eight years, the US had better get rid of its current power structure and fast.


See, this is what I've never understood. America is unique among countries. Why should it change? To use your exact words; "There are some of us living in the US" who want it to be as the Founding Fathers intended. Why can't it be that and those who don't like it can move? After all, there are plenty of other nations to choose from.

There is no need for it to change, as the world polices evolve there will be three economies remaining, American, European and Asian. I have nothing against Europe, it’s the idiots that are finding new laws in their Christmas crackers and passing them.

It might seem by the tings I write about the EU that I am anti but in actual fact I’m not, it is as one person told me it is the natural progress of things. However until every country puts in the same amount of money to feed the EU, and all the time there is the theme of every country is equal but some are more equal than others it will never be a united states of Europe.

Regards ian 2411

[tedteague]

They collectively wrote the Constitution. I would say they agreed on that. (They did, after all, sign the document)

Kicking and screaming, and after it was done, they had to write another couple of pages of crap they didn't include the frst time, then the two major players fought with each other until they both died, which coincidentally happened on the same day