Subsidized everything

[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