• 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!

The Future of The USA

If you had to choose and these were the only options available, which of the followin

  • Total voters
    30
joko104 said:
I believe the presumptions of the poll are exactly wrong.

To be MOST charitable to our own people, we also must be as wealthy a nation as possible.

Increased charity/welfare by declining economic national wealthy is an impossibility.
Click to expand...

I wonder how countries like Finland are able to be very civic minded and not be the most wealthy nation? It seems like there are several industrialized nations, including Canada that have better health care systems and better school systems.... yet amazingly, they are not even close to the wealthiest nations in the world... hmmm... perhaps you could shed some light on that
 
Goshin said:
:shrug: I expressed what I though we could do. We can make huge cuts in domestic Federal spending, and large cuts in military spending, and still have good social programs and the best military in the world and STILL balance the budget, IF we get rid of the waste, pork, fraud and general crap that exists among those two budget categories.

It will mean hardship for some areas, closing military bases we don't need and not building another 1000 tanks this year unless we actually need 1000 new tanks. It will be hard on some politicians who won't get to bring home the Federal bacon in the form of money for local stuff that doesn't really help the poor a lot but does bring some business to local contractors. However it can be done, if the political will existed to really reform government spending and cut those bloated, frequently useless non-results-producting, often-needlessly duplicated bureacratic empires down to a lean efficient machine.

The hard part about that is that I serious doubt the political will exists to do it... too many pockets being lined, too many politicians depending on pork for reelection.

Short version, the real world often sucks more than any hypothetical dilemma. ;)
Click to expand...

Granted, I agree with most of what you have just said. I am curious though exactly how much you think can be cut that way.

Still, it seems as though you refused to engage in the prioritizing exercise. I just want to know what you value more in the given hypothetical situation. Or more likely, which option you dislike least ;)
 
MusicAdventurer said:
I wonder how countries like Finland are able to be very civic minded and not be the most wealthy nation? It seems like there are several industrialized nations, including Canada that have better health care systems and better school systems.... yet amazingly, they are not even close to the wealthiest nations in the world... hmmm... perhaps you could shed some light on that
Click to expand...

what's the average income per family in canada vs the USA. canada is a rather wealthy nation given its population.
 
TurtleDude said:
Its like that advertisement that Immigrant-billionaire Thomas Pefferry (sp) has put up

Under socialism, the rich are poorer but so are the poor. Its the rich who take care of the poor. want the poor to have better handouts, support the creation of more wealthy people
Click to expand...


It seems like your making this an all or nothing type situation though, as if the concepts of free market and socialism can't be mixed. We already know government needs to be involved. If they weren't, monopolies would develop and quality would go down. Its already going that way as it is because government has supported legislature for all the largest corporations instead of for all the truly small businesses. Opportunity for small business is best for everyone; not opportunity for the largest. Sure, we need some of the largest too, but some of them have already gotten out of control and the government should have intervened against their monopolies long ago.
 
TurtleDude said:
what's the average income per family in canada vs the USA. canada is a rather wealthy nation given its population.
Click to expand...



and Finland and the others?

and still I don't believe Canada is more wealthy for the average person than the US - don't try to downplay the point
 
MusicAdventurer said:
It seems like your making this an all or nothing type situation though, as if the concepts of free market and socialism can't be mixed. We already know government needs to be involved. If they weren't, monopolies would develop and quality would go down. Its already going that way as it is because government has supported legislature for all the largest corporations instead of for all the truly small businesses. Opportunity for small business is best for everyone; not opportunity for the largest. Sure, we need some of the largest too, but some of them have already gotten out of control and the government should have intervened against their monopolies long ago.
Click to expand...


Here is the problem. just about everyone agrees that those truly in need, especially those who become unable to care for themselves because of their service to our nation (disabled veterans especially) or because of no fault of their own (born with a disability, injured due to the negligence of others etc) should be taken care of. The problem is that there are way too many politicians who use that need to create power for themselves by using the safety net to trawl for votes and to create dependent supporters.

and that creates an environment perhaps worse than a society where only private charity cares for the truly needy
 
MusicAdventurer said:
and Finland and the others?

and still I don't believe Canada is more wealthy for the average person than the US - don't try to downplay the point
Click to expand...

well what are the numbers?
 
I vote "None of the above"

Having the number one economy gives you everything else. You do not have to sacrifice one for the other
 
None of the above...
 
GmH said:
I vote "None of the above"

Having the number one economy gives you everything else. You do not have to sacrifice one for the other
Click to expand...

I agree, A strong, thriving economy makes all categories increase. And, even better, it does it by the free choices of the people and not the government choosing.
 
MusicAdventurer said:
Thank you for your honest response. It is refreshing. I agree that we are a well endowed nation. I also don't believe things are as bad as the media is making them out to be. I believe most of it is to create drama and an attempt for political parties to get their licks. There is big money in politics. Different people benefit from different political figures being in power. Big big money.

In regards to open questions - that would ruin the point of the exercise. I have made several closed ended polls and this is the first that I have gotten such aversive reactions to. :)



What exactly do you think they would do to us if we weren't top dog?
Click to expand...

if it's anything like what they do to their own people, it's not my cup of tea!!
 
GmH said:
I vote "None of the above"

Having the number one economy gives you everything else. You do not have to sacrifice one for the other
Click to expand...

But you didn't answer the question as to which is the least deplorable option.

Also, as mentioned in earlier posts, what about countries like Finland and Canada? Kind of goes opposite of your proposition doesn't it. Especially since their school and healthcare is better than ours.

But I go back to the original comment, you didn't choose an option.
 
celticwar17 said:
I agree, A strong, thriving economy makes all categories increase. And, even better, it does it by the free choices of the people and not the government choosing.
Click to expand...


But you didn't answer the question as to which is the least deplorable option.

Also, as mentioned in earlier posts, what about countries like Finland and Canada? Kind of goes opposite of your proposition doesn't it. Especially since their school and healthcare is better than ours.

But I go back to the original comment, you didn't choose an option.
 
MusicAdventurer said:
Granted, I agree with most of what you have just said. I am curious though exactly how much you think can be cut that way.
Click to expand...

Not too long ago I went through the Federal budget line-by-line and analyzed what was there. I also looked into how much we waste on duplicate agencies, agencies that generate ZERO results, and military equipment contracts for equipment the military does not want and bases they do not need but which are kept open by local politicians.

We could literally cut at least a third of domestic spending, and still have enough money to cut each and every poor family an annual check for at least 20k, if our bureaucracy didn't make so much of that money vanish into useless black holes. As for military spending, the 20% is a bit arbitrary but we spend so many times more than our next nearest competitor that we'd have to cut far more than 20% before we were in any danger of falling to #2 status.



Still, it seems as though you refused to engage in the prioritizing exercise. I just want to know what you value more in the given hypothetical situation. Or more likely, which option you dislike least ;)
Click to expand...

I prefer the option I talked about. ;)

I have also been told I could give stubborn lessons to a mule. ;)
 
MusicAdventurer said:
But you didn't answer the question as to which is the least deplorable option.

Also, as mentioned in earlier posts, what about countries like Finland and Canada? Kind of goes opposite of your proposition doesn't it. Especially since their school and healthcare is better than ours.

But I go back to the original comment, you didn't choose an option.
Click to expand...
Your saying the better the economy in Finland and Canada the worse the people are off?

The reason why the US is worse-off in school is cultural and because of the large population. Culture is the main reason and it is something that cannot be changed by government throwing money at it.
 
Hey that last part of option A about the voting power being decided by the level of monetary contributions in taxes is a great idea. That alone would make option A the best. We Don't need to take any action on any class increasing any disadvantages or advantages and military power should only be enough for national defense. The idea is to defend our rights. The right to life. The right not to live at the point of a gun. Not to live under physical threat.
 
celticwar17 said:
Your saying the better the economy in Finland and Canada the worse the people are off?

The reason why the US is worse-off in school is cultural and because of the large population. Culture is the main reason and it is something that cannot be changed by government throwing money at it.
Click to expand...

Seems like you ducked the healthcare issue (not to mention culture is not something that exists in a vacuum, i.e. it is changeable, any psychologist would agree, that is if they understand how culture works)
 
MTrossman said:
Hey that last part of option A about the voting power being decided by the level of monetary contributions in taxes is a great idea. That alone would make option A the best. We Don't need to take any action on any class increasing any disadvantages or advantages and military power should only be enough for national defense. The idea is to defend our rights. The right to life. The right not to live at the point of a gun. Not to live under physical threat.
Click to expand...

Its a good thing that there is at least some illusion that democracy actually exists. The truth is that everything is actually already pretty much run by those with the most money anyway. If everyone realized that, things would have changed a long time ago. You wish for something that basically already exists. Its good though that, a percentage of the time, if enough people complain about something for long enough, eventually, years later, something will change. As long as the masses can be appeased, which includes people being brainwashed with ideas such as the idea that true equality of opportunity actually exists (i.e. a level playing field for all from the start - not to be confused with equality of outcome), that democracy actually exists, that greed doesn't exist (and the hoarding that goes along with it), that the most wealthy aren't already running the show and so on.... well anyway, as long as suckers can be convinced of these things, or at least as long as around %50 of the population can be convinced of these things or are simply too naive to understand any of it... well then, things won't change and you will continue to have your dictatorship from the wealthy riding on the backs of the poor.

Its my job, and those of like minded people to continue to let this message ring until enough wake up and do something about it ;)
 
Goshin said:
Not too long ago I went through the Federal budget line-by-line and analyzed what was there. I also looked into how much we waste on duplicate agencies, agencies that generate ZERO results, and military equipment contracts for equipment the military does not want and bases they do not need but which are kept open by local politicians.
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to see your work on that - identifying whats duplicate, what generates zero results etc.

Goshin said:
We could literally cut at least a third of domestic spending, and still have enough money to cut each and every poor family an annual check for at least 20k, if our bureaucracy didn't make so much of that money vanish into useless black holes. As for military spending, the 20% is a bit arbitrary but we spend so many times more than our next nearest competitor that we'd have to cut far more than 20% before we were in any danger of falling to #2 status.
Click to expand...

Then why all the cries for more military spending?

Obviously cutting every poor family a check for $20 isn't prudent (I know you know this), but I hope you weren't implying that this is what I would want

I think the money would be better spent on finding ways to pay living wages, to keeping people employed, and yes, for those that are disabled and cannot work. Bottom line, in a world where the human employee is needed to a lesser and lesser degree (or so it seems) - we need to find ways that everyone can be productive for society.

Instead of handing out welfare checks, why not have the government just match whatever the poorest people make per hour with a certain contribution amount? But ideally, the government wouldn't have to be the middle man in this - which would mean minimum wage would have to go up instead. It makes you wonder how things got to be such a mess... doesn't it?
 
roflpublican said:
if it's anything like what they do to their own people, it's not my cup of tea!!
Click to expand...

So they would just march on over and take over our country? Via military force? Is that what you think? I am trying to understand what you are getting at, but rather than giving me a straight answer, you dodge via a cutesie remark
 
MusicAdventurer said:
Seems like you ducked the healthcare issue (not to mention culture is not something that exists in a vacuum, i.e. it is changeable, any psychologist would agree, that is if they understand how culture works)
Click to expand...
America has the best medical care anywhere, sure it's very expensive, but it's doesn't suffer the wait-times and lack of freedom other countries do. I didn;t mention Healthcare cause you didn't in the post I was replying to.
 
MusicAdventurer said:
Seems like you ducked the healthcare issue (not to mention culture is not something that exists in a vacuum, i.e. it is changeable, any psychologist would agree, that is if they understand how culture works)
Click to expand...
And on the culture thing, How is that relevant to what I said or what the thread is about? I honestly lost track lol
 
Reply to Turtle Dude:
"Its like that advertisement that Immigrant-billionaire Thomas Pefferry (sp) has put up

Under socialism, the rich are poorer but so are the poor. Its the rich who take care of the poor. want the poor to have better handouts, support the creation of more wealthy people"


If you give the rich a higher percentage of the wealth, the poor are automatically poorer. It is simple arithmetic.
 
celticwar17 said:
America has the best medical care anywhere, sure it's very expensive, but it's doesn't suffer the wait-times and lack of freedom other countries do. I didn;t mention Healthcare cause you didn't in the post I was replying to.
Click to expand...


That's simply not true. America has the most expensive medical care anywhere and it is not the best. It was the best in the past, but most of us don't live in the past. Now, if you have big money, you may be able to get the best medical care in the world in the USA, but that is not what you said.
 
MusicAdventurer said:
I don't want any of the above either - but I wonder which option is closest to what people want? This is what's called an ethical dilemma. It helps to bring up important issues so that we can be prepared if we had to make decisions. Its an exercise of the brain. What do you value? What would you sacrifice?
Click to expand...

Excersizing my brain I also say that these are false choices. We are smarter than painting ourself into a corner where we actuaqlly have no choices
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom