• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is the United States a benefit to the World?

Is the US a benefit to the World?

  • Yes, absolutely. The world will kill itself without us.

    Votes: 8 16.7%
  • Yes, I believe so. I think we do more good than harm.

    Votes: 26 54.2%
  • Not sure.

    Votes: 6 12.5%
  • No, I don’t believe so. I think we do more harm than good.

    Votes: 7 14.6%
  • No, absolutely not. The world will kill us if we don’t get out of its way.

    Votes: 1 2.1%

  • Total voters
    48
  • Poll closed .
How he describes himself is immarterial since he is a politician and a lyer. His actions and policies that he supports are clearly those of a socialist. Socialism, in any form, may differ from Marx but have common elements, mainly that the early steps of transition from Capitalism to Socialism require a government to seize control of industry and resources so that they may be equitably redistributed without regards to actual production of the individual. His policies, actions and economics clearly fall within that discription, thus is is undoubtedly socialist.

What makes him socialist. Hmm, lets see, proclaiming that we should pursue "bottom up economics", using the government to take over corporations, advocating laws that give the government control over corporations, using government monies for social programs to the detriment of average productive citizens, appointing an Industry Czar and actually expecting companies to abide by his policies, using tax laws to attempt to redistribute wealth from those who have actually done something and earned it to social cancers, such as welfare, calling the socialist revolution that overthrew a democratic government in China something to celebrate, they fact that so many of his policies are centered around "empowering" the poor at the expense of others, the fact that his level of control, while methodically different from Marx has the same economic affect, his constant demonizing of the Free Market, Capatilist markets and the results of profit based business, his claiming that the creators and investors "didn't build that" because a lot of unskilled labor was used, never mind that without the investments and creators nothing would of occured but if the unskilled laborers used weren't available, there are plenty others that would of been, his attempts to exerpt direct government control of the healthcare systems and other industries . Come to think of it, has he actually done anything or supported any policy that did not have a socialistic element? Oh, wait, I guess he did support patent reform to give the patent to the first to apply for it, well, I guess nobody, given enough time could do everything wrong.

Furthur, you seem to think I am directly refering to just Obama. Come on, when has any of my posts actually focused on only a single moment in history? We have been trending towards socialism since the 1960s, not just under Obama. You previously mentioned the human costs during different eras of US history, tell me, what has been the human costs since we started trending towards socialistic policies? How many jobs have left America as a result of government policies, taxes and agencies like OSHA and EPA? How bad has our education systems become since then? How many people are killed, raped, and assaulted as a result of living under socialistic programs like welfare? How many people have had their lives suppressed and ruined by adherence to socialistic programs? Tell, me, how many under welfare actually ever escape it or even attempt to escape it without reforms being made to the system and them being forced to? What is the crime rates, participation in gang violence, etc in these welfare areas controlled by socialistic programs? You point out that from the end of the civil war to the assination of Martin Luther King, Jr being double the numbers from 9/11, well guess what, murders generated by welfare and other socialist programs have an annual death rate of near that or greater. The human costs in this country since the introduction of socialist sytems here is far greater than in the entire previous history of the US, including slave era, prohibition and the civil war.

proclaiming that we should pursue "bottom up economics"

Both Trickle Down (Reaganomics) and Trickle Up (bottom up) are BOTH considered by economists to be free market capitalism. The only place I've ever seen bottom up economics referred to as socialist are on some conservative radio talk shows and only since Obama ran for the Presidency in 2008.

using the government to take over corporations

I don't like it either but its not without precedent. I promise the first time I ever heard of it in the US was the case of a brothel in Nevada :shock:. Prostitution is legal in only one state in the US, Nevada. This brothel reportedly was taken over by the IRS for defaulting on federal taxes, was run by what was essentially a division of the US government until it could be auctioned off.

The second time was the Savings and Loan crisis of the 1980s. Due to a complicated set of circumstances nearly 800 banks in America had to be taken over by the Reagan Administration under a government run entity called The Resolution Trust Corporation.

With respect to the GM bailout, the only "government takeover of a business" during the Obama Administration that I'm aware of, its a complicated set of circumstances that were never expected to turn out that way. To make a long story short, GM was on the verge of bankruptcy IMHO due to no fault of its own (another story). To keep from shutting down GM ASKED the US government for loans to hold them over until the economic climate improved similar to the loan to Chrysler requested by Lee Iaccoca in the 1970s and Small Business Administration loans made every day and that no one to my knowledge has ever called "socialist". In the case of GM, they got their loan and AFTER they still had to file for bankruptcy. Because they were in bankruptcy and owed the American taxpayer a ton of money, the US government became an inadvertent and temporary co-owner of GM. Again, I don't like it but under the circumstances I understand as it saved a lot of American jobs not on in Michigan but throughout the country at dealerships and local TV, newspapers and radio outlets that rely heavily on dealerships advertising.

Furthur, you seem to think I am directly refering to just Obama.

I did get that impression, sorry for the misunderstanding. I just don't think Obama was necessarily more damaging to our freedom and rights than any other POTUS, which is what I misunderstood you to imply.

Wish I had more time but extra busy today.
 
I've been hearing a lot of interesting rhetoric on this subject, for a while now, so I figured I'd throw this question out there and see what you all think.

Without a doubt...I find it hard for anybody to think the United States hasnt' done more good than harm...even including all the black stains we have in our history.
 
Without a doubt...I find it hard for anybody to think the United States hasnt' done more good than harm...even including all the black stains we have in our history.

Ah, but the question is not whether the US was, but rather, is it still. In the past was the US a benefit to the world, without a doubt, is it still a benefit to the world and will it remain a benefit to the world, I have to stick with unsure.
 
and Russia and Britain and Australia and Canada and the soldiers of the British empire etc etc etc

To hear some people, you wonder whether anyone else was involved in either world war. I'm guessing that Japan and Germany also played minor roles somewhere along the line but really it was all down to the US - start to finish.

don't get your knickers in a twist...it was a joke (or did you miss the ;) )
 
don't get your knickers in a twist...it was a joke (or did you miss the ;) )


There ya go annoying the public again oscar...you would make a great cop :)
 
Ah, but the question is not whether the US was, but rather, is it still. In the past was the US a benefit to the world, without a doubt, is it still a benefit to the world and will it remain a benefit to the world, I have to stick with unsure.

I'm definately not a fan of recent US foreign policy...so don't get me wrong. I'm not a rah rah under any circumstances our actions are fine.

At the same time....I think Kosovo and Libya have shown that the "International Community" is a group of bumbling under funded militaries. They completely rely on US technology and logistics as well as for the US to do the heavy lifting. I think if the US was gone tomorrow...Tawain, South Korea, Israel, and other conflicts would take place all around the world. Russia would gobble up the countries that just recently gain independence. Countries like Iran that are bellicose would start taking over their neighbors. I think global security almost entirely hinges on the US.
 
heh...my man no wonder I like you :)

I bet you never meet a cop
As funky as me



hotcop.jpg
 
I'm definately not a fan of recent US foreign policy...so don't get me wrong. I'm not a rah rah under any circumstances our actions are fine.

At the same time....I think Kosovo and Libya have shown that the "International Community" is a group of bumbling under funded militaries. They completely rely on US technology and logistics as well as for the US to do the heavy lifting. I think if the US was gone tomorrow...Tawain, South Korea, Israel, and other conflicts would take place all around the world. Russia would gobble up the countries that just recently gain independence. Countries like Iran that are bellicose would start taking over their neighbors. I think global security almost entirely hinges on the US.

I don't totally disagree with you, probably when I do, it is for different reasons than yours. But, Britain and the British Commonwealth nations I think would be more than capable of holding their own without us. Do they use our equipment and technology sometimes, sure, but hey, it's cheaper and sometimes better to use ours. Israel, biggest problem is it really has few resources, just too small without enough natural resources, they actually have developed some pretty decent domestic equipment. As to some of the others, I'm not so sure preventing them from going at each others throats is a benefit to the world. Recently, I totally agree with some of the things the US has tried to do, but the way we screwed the pooch in carring them out and whether or not it actually changed a damned thing makes one question whether we were a benefit or a hinderance. Taking out the regional counterbalance to Iran while leaving Iran alone really was not a benefit to ourselves or the region.
 
ask the europeans who would all be speaking german now if it were not for the US ;)

Ah, but the question is in the present tense because it begins with IS, not WAS. Ron Paul's message of liberty was rejected by the people who, in doing so, have F****D us and themselves. Also in doing so, have given the military industrial complex free reign to finish the job it started. Obama has done nothing for world peace and Romney has vowed to TRIPLE military spending. The military spending, by the way, is why we are in economic turmoil but let's triple it. WHY? To impose the will of NOT US, but a few billionaires who have become parasitic to the unwitting american public. They have already implemented their plan to rid the world of 80% of the population and americans are so dumb, they have and will continue to fund the entire thing!! So, to answer your question (if you mean the United States as an entity, not as a people), the United States is a disease to the world right now and I'm very disappointed that someone like me, who knows nothing about politics, has enough intuitive sense to see that this is happening, but the vast majority of americans do not.
 
and Russia and Britain and Australia and Canada and the soldiers of the British empire etc etc etc

To hear some people, you wonder whether anyone else was involved in either world war. I'm guessing that Japan and Germany also played minor roles somewhere along the line but really it was all down to the US - start to finish.
In that war, Japan and Germany lost their worst people while we lost our best. Like the ancient Greeks after the Battle of Marathon, we've been going downhill ever since.
 
don't get your knickers in a twist...it was a joke (or did you miss the ;) )

I'll take the hit but you will find many people on your side of the pond think your joke is real historyt.
 
I'll take the hit but you will find many people on your side of the pond think your joke is real historyt.

Unfortunately, real history on our side of the "pond" has been becoming more and more of a joke anyways. We spend far more time and resources teaching our children the "contributions" of minorities than teaching real history or civics, how our government is supposed to work. Multi-cultural sensitivity is actually required in some school systems here.

Look at how many Americans keep supporting variations of socialism although implementing it has repeatedly failed through out history. Instead of returning back to what allowed us to rise to the top and finding new ways to address the problems that existed, they keep trying again and again to repeat the same failed schemes.
 
I don't think so. That's a sweet extrapolation but not correct, I'm afraid. ;)

Yes, the USA has benefited the world in many ways and harmed it too. American foreign policy for example.

You are right... Europe would be speaking German and the Pacific would be speaking Japanese if not for the Americans. Good catch.
 
and Russia and Britain and Australia and Canada and the soldiers of the British empire etc etc etc

To hear some people, you wonder whether anyone else was involved in either world war. I'm guessing that Japan and Germany also played minor roles somewhere along the line but really it was all down to the US - start to finish.

Your level of contribution to WWII relies solely on the amount of movies you make on the subject. Sorry.
 
don't get your knickers in a twist...it was a joke (or did you miss the ;) )

I'll take the hit but you will find many people on your side of the pond think your joke is real historyt.

You are right... Europe would be speaking German and the Pacific would be speaking Japanese if not for the Americans. Good catch.

Your level of contribution to WWII relies solely on the amount of movies you make on the subject. Sorry.

Calling OscarB63 - we got a live one here. No smileys either so he really believes what he's saying.
 
You are right... Europe would be speaking German and the Pacific would be speaking Japanese if not for the Americans. Good catch.

What about the Soviet Union? Surely they deserve recognition in winning the war, don't they?
 
And the Eastern Bloc, and the Iron Curtain, and genocide, and the Berlin Wall, etc etc etc...

Yeah, I don't get this. I was talking about WWII, not the Soviet Union as a whole.

The Soviet Union had a huge impact on WWII.
 
That's all after the war..

Only because Truman was a typical coward Democrat (or maybe the Dems were pro-socialist even then) and wouldn't allow Patton to kick the soviets asses. But go figure, Wilson, also a Democrat didn't properly finish things in WWI which caused WW II. FDR, also a Democrat was stupid enough to ally with the soviets in the first place and actually sold/gave them equipment. So Truman didn't really end WWII, While the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nazi's) were defeated, he didn't not finish eradicating socialism and allowed the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to live and so we had the Cold War and all the bad crap from it. Truman also abandoned the Chinese people and allowed Socialism to rise there, only protecting a few at the end by not allowing them to take Taiwan. Truman was also true to form Democrat once again when he didn't invest enough in the Korean war, not only allowing North Korea to survive, but he stopped MacArthur from taking out the Communist Chinese (more bloody pain in the ass socialist).
 
Back
Top Bottom