• 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 America the greatest Country anymore? Or do you agree with Will?

Is America the greatest Country anymore? Or do you agree with Will?

  • Total voters
    57
Andalublue said:
Yes it is. Glad to help.
Click to expand...

Ok - interesting additions. I like your choices on democracy. My choice on music reflected my classical tendencies. Ms/Mr Wurst has certainly put Austrian music back on the map, for different reasons.

Vatican City is up there on pomp but have you heard how lousy their choir is?

I think Britain has lost its sitcom crown since the ones you mentioned. Frasier, 2 and a Half Men and Big Bang Theory are now way ahead of the competition.

UK for sport was a historic choice because it codified and professionalised so many sports - but agreed that Spain and Australia are per head of population ahead of the pack.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Is America the greatest Country anymore? Or do you agree with Will?

Click to expand...


I agree with Will. What he said was more patriotic than anything anyone says these days: we're turning into a shell of our former selves being led by factions whose last concern is the benefit of this country.
 
Is America the greatest Country anymore? Or do you agree with Will?
Click to expand...

i used to buy into that label when i was younger. now "greatest country" mostly seems to mean that the US is expected to intervene in global conflicts instead of building a nice country that takes care of its citizens and innovates a better and more stable society than anywhere else. there are all sorts of measures for how good it is to live somewhere, not just brute strength or economic power. why not just shoot for greatest quality of life? that seems to be the best measure.
 
Helix said:
i used to buy into that label when i was younger. now "greatest country" mostly seems to mean that the US is expected to intervene in global conflicts instead of building a nice country that takes care of its citizens and innovates a better and more stable society than anywhere else. there are all sorts of measures for how good it is to live somewhere, not just brute strength or economic power. why not just shoot for greatest quality of life? that seems to be the best measure.
Click to expand...
That's at least a more objective measure.

In this survey, the USA was 16 in the world rankings Where-to-be-born Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia On The UK was down at 27. The general pattern is that smaller industrialised countries do better.
 


:agree:yt:werd:2usflag::ind:
 
Peter King said:
Limited, unlimited sharing of wealth would be insane IMHO. I am a social democrat, not a communist ;)

And in times when the economy is performing very well and the budget is balanced and the debts of the government are being paid off in a sufficient manner then everybody will see their tax levels dropped, the rich more than the lowest incomes.

Because I am of the economic "school/opinion" that in times of crisis the people with the broadest financial shoulders have to bear more of the weight of the government finances and in times when the economy is doing really well they should be rewarded for their "heavy lifting" during the crisis so that they are compensated for paying a bigger piece of their income during the crisis.
Click to expand...
There are very few politicians in the US that are completely against any sharing of wealth. You can probably find some, but I'm not aware of any.
 
Redress said:
It is a rather silly speech designed to sound good while having exactly zero substance. And he is wrong both in saying that America is not the greatest country in the world, and his over the top rose tinted glasses while looking back.
Click to expand...

It all depends on what you define as "great" though doesn't it, America is a nice place to live no doubt but certain parts of it are certainty not ideal for raising families and can be extremely violent. America is the most powerful country but that doesn't mean it's the greatest.
Saying that however I don't really see any country as being the "greatest" to live in, as they say home is where the heart is.
 
Anglo-scot said:
Most people from outside the USA are not going to agree with any American that America is objectively the "greatest country" in the world, if it is sincerely believed.
Click to expand...

It's okay. We don't mind if those from other nations do not agree. In the categories that matter to us....specifically was differentiates us from virtually all other nations is what we feel makes us the greatest nation. We are not offended if you disagree.


You just open yourself to being knocked down on an endless number of issues.
Click to expand...

In your opinion, maybe. However in some of those categories, I would bet that your nation and mine tabulate results differently.


Sure, be proud of your country, and I'll be proud of mine. I can also admire your country,
Click to expand...

You should be proud of your country. It has a long and rich history.

but I won't bother telling you what I admire about it if you keep telling me that it's the best.
Click to expand...

That is completely up to you.
 
Helix said:
i used to buy into that label when i was younger. now "greatest country" mostly seems to mean that the US is expected to intervene in global conflicts instead of building a nice country that takes care of its citizens and innovates a better and more stable society than anywhere else. there are all sorts of measures for how good it is to live somewhere, not just brute strength or economic power. why not just shoot for greatest quality of life? that seems to be the best measure.
Click to expand...

Some of that American intervention is usually being the first on the scene bringing the most, and helping the most after a natural disaster.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Some of that American intervention is usually being the first on the scene bringing the most, and helping the most after a natural disaster.
Click to expand...

i'm good with disaster aid. i'm not good with the US being expected to act as the world's pro bono military. we've neglected our own country for long enough, and it's someone else's turn.
 
Helix said:
i'm good with disaster aid. i'm not good with the US being expected to act as the world's pro bono military. we've neglected our own country for long enough, and it's someone else's turn.
Click to expand...

No one else is capable enough, or disinterested enough. Madeleine Albright was on the mark when she said the US is the indispensable nation.:2usflag:
 
Jack Hays said:
No one else is capable enough, or disinterested enough. Madeleine Albright was on the mark when she said the US is the indispensable nation.:2usflag:
Click to expand...

our region is our responsibility. other regions are the responsibility of the regional hegemons there.

a hypothetical for you, Jack : are you willing to pay significantly higher wartime tax rates whenever our troops are deployed or when we are involved in a military action abroad?
 
Helix said:
our region is our responsibility. other regions are the responsibility of the regional hegemons there.

a hypothetical for you, Jack : are you willing to pay significantly higher wartime tax rates whenever our troops are deployed or when we are involved in a military action abroad?
Click to expand...

Yes. It was a great error by GWB not to impose a war tax.
 
Jack Hays said:
Yes. It was a great error by GWB not to impose a war tax.
Click to expand...

in fact, he actually cut taxes during the war. i'll at least give you credit for consistency on this one. most hawks aren't willing to pay another dime.

my personal preference is to raise tax rates significantly during wartime to make the public a lot more reluctant, and to make the upper tiers who tend to make money from war especially reluctant. when it doesn't affect you personally, you tend not to care. either way, we've maintained a constant state of war for long enough, and it's time to try something else, IMO.
 
Helix said:
in fact, he actually cut taxes during the war. i'll at least give you credit for consistency on this one. most hawks aren't willing to pay another dime.

my personal preference is to raise tax rates significantly during wartime to make the public a lot more reluctant, and to make the upper tiers who tend to make money from war especially reluctant. when it doesn't affect you personally, you tend not to care. either way, we've maintained a constant state of war for long enough, and it's time to try something else, IMO.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, we are not the determiners of how long we will fight unless it is your intention to surrender. And the "upper tiers" have as much to lose as to gain in war, and their stock portfolios usually take a hit. For me the war tax is a means for the public to participate in the effort. It has to be accompanied by expansionist fiscal policy to offset the constricting effect of higher taxes.
 
Jack Hays said:
No one else is capable enough, or disinterested enough. Madeleine Albright was on the mark when she said the US is the indispensable nation.:2usflag:
Click to expand...
Indispensable to what? I'd be more than happy for the US to stop getting involved in world conflicts. I feel the same about Britain. It would save a lot of lives and money.
 
Anglo-scot said:
Indispensable to what? I'd be more than happy for the US to stop getting involved in world conflicts. I feel the same about Britain. It would save a lot of lives and money.
Click to expand...

No, it would not. The conflicts would merely be larger, more violent and closer at hand.
 
Depends on how you define "greatest." I think America is great, but I don't think it's best at all things.
 
Jack Hays said:
With all due respect, we are not the determiners of how long we will fight unless it is your intention to surrender. And the "upper tiers" have as much to lose as to gain in war, and their stock portfolios usually take a hit. For me the war tax is a means for the public to participate in the effort. It has to be accompanied by expansionist fiscal policy to offset the constricting effect of higher taxes.
Click to expand...

yeah, we have the choice to tell Saudi Arabia to handle its own region as we handle ours. the best thing that we could do would be to spend all of that war money on replacing the transportation energy model. that would probably do more to defund terror than anything else.

the region has been embroiled in a holy war for more than a thousand years. we pick whatever side is convenient, and then ten years later, we're fighting that side, and they're armed with our weapons. i'm not sure how many times it has to happen before we finally figure that out. get out of the region for thirty years and let it stabilize. in the meantime, we have a whole lot of roads to fix, an energy grid to expand, and a century old transportation energy model to upgrade. the money would be much better spent doing that.
 
Helix said:
i'm good with disaster aid. i'm not good with the US being expected to act as the world's pro bono military. we've neglected our own country for long enough, and it's someone else's turn.
Click to expand...

I am at least partially with you on that one. I think we need to maintain our abilities and logistics, however it is time for Europe to step up to the plate.
 
Helix said:
yeah, we have the choice to tell Saudi Arabia to handle its own region as we handle ours. the best thing that we could do would be to spend all of that war money on replacing the transportation energy model. that would probably do more to defund terror than anything else.

the region has been embroiled in a holy war for more than a thousand years. we pick whatever side is convenient, and then ten years later, we're fighting that side, and they're armed with our weapons. i'm not sure how many times it has to happen before we finally figure that out. get out of the region for thirty years and let it stabilize. in the meantime, we have a whole lot of roads to fix, an energy grid to expand, and a century old transportation energy model to upgrade. the money would be much better spent doing that.
Click to expand...

Oil money from the US is a negligible source of terrorist support. A large role for that oil money is just a myth. It is also a myth that the ME has been embroiled in holy war for centuries. There have been conflicts to be sure, but there have been longer periods of calm. A strong US presence actually gives regimes there the confidence to not act with hair-trigger responses.
 
Jack Hays said:
No one else is capable enough, or disinterested enough. Madeleine Albright was on the mark when she said the US is the indispensable nation.:2usflag:
Click to expand...

The Europeans claim they are going to build a European union quick reaction force. That would be a start.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom