How to fix America. (only post if your American)

[cmckinney]

Here's something interesting: Bush wants our economy to go up. So he cuts taxes. To the rich. But here's the thing - the rich have too much money to spend. So they end up accumalating this money. Instead of giving the money to the poor, who would spend it on something they need, the money goes to the rich, who keep it. This leads to a weaker economy.

So in ur opinion, us giving more money to drug additcted hobos will boost our ecoconomy. Why didnt our top analysts think of that?

Here come the killer:

DO YOU HAVE ANY PROOF THAT WHAT YOU JUST SAID IS TRUE.

And if you make 300 dollars a week from a shitty job because lawmakers want to keep the min. wage low for no apparent reason, and you lose 105 due to taxes, and you spend 100+ dollars on food and water, and however much on oil for a car if you have one, doesn't leave you with much. The point is, they don't have enough for the essentials. However people like Howard Stern who in 5 minutes make over a million dollars have too much money, and instead of helping the masses he chooses to make a Hi-Def Channel on TV.

Besides, Drug dealing is good for the economy. We are not getting into why that is (why the hell is pot still illegal?).

There is no reason to look at yourself, and then look at thousands of poeple in clothes from a long time ago because they have no money for others, and then look at your money, and say "This is mine, fuckers. Get a job."

what do u mean, do i mean proof???????? A guy who makes who makes 300 a week DOES NOT HAVE TO PAY 30 TO 40% IN TAXES U FREAKIN IDIOT. HE PAYS MORE LIKE 5%!!!!!! ONLY RICH PEOPLE ARE BEING FORCED TO EAY REAL TAXES. U EVER HEARD THE SAYING " 10% OF THE COUNTRY PAYS 90% OF THE TAXES"????????? u actually are asking for proof that people put money un bank accounts and private schools??? and this is the stupidest statement uve said so dar "DRUG DEALING IS GOOD FOR AMERICA!" DO U LISTEN TO URSELF? HOW ARE DRUNKIES RUNNING OVER POOR KIDS AND DRUGGYS BREAKIN INTO UR HOUSE FOR A FEW BUCKS FOR THAT NEXT DOSE GOOD FOR THE FREAKIN ECONOMY. U ARE A COMPLETE AND TOTAL FREAKIN IDIOT. UR ALSO A LIBERAL BASTARD

[cmckinney]

lets just go tell random drug dealers that them selling thier crack and meth is good for our economy!!!!!!!!!!

[Blueoctober]

Here's something interesting: Bush wants our economy to go up. So he cuts taxes. To the rich. But here's the thing - the rich have too much money to spend. So they end up accumalating this money. Instead of giving the money to the poor, who would spend it on something they need, the money goes to the rich, who keep it. This leads to a weaker economy.

So in ur opinion, us giving more money to drug additcted hobos will boost our ecoconomy. Why didnt our top analysts think of that?

Here come the killer:

DO YOU HAVE ANY PROOF THAT WHAT YOU JUST SAID IS TRUE.

And if you make 300 dollars a week from a shitty job because lawmakers want to keep the min. wage low for no apparent reason, and you lose 105 due to taxes, and you spend 100+ dollars on food and water, and however much on oil for a car if you have one, doesn't leave you with much. The point is, they don't have enough for the essentials. However people like Howard Stern who in 5 minutes make over a million dollars have too much money, and instead of helping the masses he chooses to make a Hi-Def Channel on TV.

Besides, Drug dealing is good for the economy. We are not getting into why that is (why the hell is pot still illegal?).

There is no reason to look at yourself, and then look at thousands of poeple in clothes from a long time ago because they have no money for others, and then look at your money, and say "This is mine, fuckers. Get a job."

what do u mean, do i mean proof???????? A guy who makes who makes 300 a week DOES NOT HAVE TO PAY 30 TO 40% IN TAXES U FREAKIN IDIOT. HE PAYS MORE LIKE 5%!!!!!! ONLY RICH PEOPLE ARE BEING FORCED TO EAY REAL TAXES. U EVER HEARD THE SAYING " 10% OF THE COUNTRY PAYS 90% OF THE TAXES"????????? u actually are asking for proof that people put money un bank accounts and private schools??? and this is the stupidest statement uve said so dar "DRUG DEALING IS GOOD FOR AMERICA!" DO U LISTEN TO URSELF? HOW ARE DRUNKIES RUNNING OVER POOR KIDS AND DRUGGYS BREAKIN INTO UR HOUSE FOR A FEW BUCKS FOR THAT NEXT DOSE GOOD FOR THE FREAKIN ECONOMY. U ARE A COMPLETE AND TOTAL FREAKIN IDIOT. UR ALSO A LIBERAL BASTARD

actually i make about 130$ a week and they take about a third of it so dont cry

[cmckinney]

and where does the other part go? IT IS NOT ALL TAXES

social security? ur plans? 401k?

[Blueoctober]

car insurance mostly

[Blueoctober]

i'm not that old

[Blueoctober]

i'm not that old

[Marvaddin]

The UN is a joke. It is corrupt and run by third world ditators. Not to mention anytime they do anything almost all of the troops are American, so America would still be the World Police.

As for illegal immigration, if we have "Free people circulation" America would become so overcrowded it would be ridiculous. Also, in case you haven't noticed, most of our drugs come in illegally as well, fuelling drug problems, like the Meth problem in Oregon.

So, please save us from UN and all those ditators... Haha, is this a joke? You Americans are always considering yourselves as freedom fighters, but you are very good enslaving other people. If you are the country that send most troops to UN, why are you disrespecting it and invading other countries using false proofs to justify it? You are, as always, being the most imperialist pigs, and still asking yourselves "why all those people hate us?". Understand: to many other countries, US economic interests are a plague. Your luxuries costed and are still costing lives in several countries.

Wouldnt you like to see US overcrowded? Whats the problem? Seriously, of course it would find an balance point when much damage was done to your economy... Dont be afraid, you would still live under better conditions than the people of countries US have "freed" and exploited. Anyway, you are still thinking that US people is superior, arent you? Do you still call latins as cockroachs? In truth, as I said, you only have better conditions due to US military strength and lack of moral that allows your country to steal other countries resources, so you can spend more with a dog than a African father have to spend with all his family.

[Jolly Roger]

The UN is a joke. It is corrupt and run by third world ditators. Not to mention anytime they do anything almost all of the troops are American, so America would still be the World Police.

This is from the United States Mission to the UN's website (http://www.usunnewyork.usmission.gov/fact2.htm):

American Financial Support

Myth: The United States pays for almost all of the United Nations’ programs and peacekeeping operations.

Reality: The U.S. pays 22% of the UN’s regular budget and about 27% of the peacekeeping budgets. It also pays about 25% of the costs of the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and former Yugoslavia.

* * * * *

Myth: The U.S. pays too much to the UN. Other countries are getting a free ride.

Reality: UN membership dues, known as assessments, are based primarily on each nation’s share of the global economy. The U.S. economy represents about 34% of the global economy. The U.S. therefore benefits from the 22% ceiling on assessments for the regular budget. Many countries actually pay more in assessments than their share of the global economy.

* * * * *

Myth: The U.S. spends a large portion of its federal budget on UN policies/programs.

Reality: Total U.S. payments to the entire UN system (including the World Bank and IMF) amount to less than one quarter of one percent of the federal budget.

* * * * *



American Military Support



Myth: Too many American soldiers are serving in UN peacekeeping operations. The U.S. provides most of the military men and women involved in UN peacekeeping operations.



Reality: 29 American military men and women are currently serving in UN peacekeeping operations. Americans therefore represent less than 1% of the approximate total of 60,419 soldiers serving in UN peacekeeping operations.



* * * * *

Myth: Serving in UN peacekeeping operations means that Americans are serving under the command of the UN or foreign government.



Reality: As Commander-in-Chief, the President never gives up his command authority over American troops. Although the U.S. sometimes allows temporary operational control to be given to the UN or a trusted ally, the President always retains ultimate command authority over our troops

[Caleb the Cruel]

Christianity brings prosperity and happiness, if we can get the overwhelming majority of Americans to become Christians, we'll be alright. If not, America will fall and fall hard.

[Ruben Cassar]

Christianity brings prosperity and happiness, if we can get the overwhelming majority of Americans to become Christians, we'll be alright. If not, America will fall and fall hard.

While the way you word things can be controversial I tend to agree with you to a certain degree! I believe that Christianity and its values have indeed brought much prosperity to the Western World in general...

[Titanic]

Christianity does not really exist int eh western world. How many people can honestly say that they reguarly attend church(Once a week or more), believe in all the Christian beleifs, and can name the ten commandments right here right now? The answer, very very few, a small minority. The majoirty of the western world is actually non-religious.

The UN should be the world police. If US forces are working for the UN, that is different to US invading other countries as they are working for UN views and UN sanctions and UN authorised missions rather then US interferance in other countries business.

[Ruben Cassar]

Christianity does not really exist int eh western world. How many people can honestly say that they reguarly attend church(Once a week or more), believe in all the Christian beleifs, and can name the ten commandments right here right now? The answer, very very few, a small minority. The majoirty of the western world is actually non-religious.

The UN should be the world police. If US forces are working for the UN, that is different to US invading other countries as they are working for UN views and UN sanctions and UN authorised missions rather then US interferance in other countries business.

I beg to differ. There are many that still practice their religion. However that wasn't my point. Christianity and its values have been the basis of the mentality of the Western World. It's kind of a spillover effect. While you might not be a practising Christian, you are still imbued with the values of Christianity that society has impressed on you. If we lose those values it could mean the end of the Western World. And the UN is a joke...a failure of epic proportions led by corrupt and incompetent people.

[Guiscard]

And the UN is a joke...a failure of epic proportions led by corrupt and incompetent people.

Ruben, I assume you only mean the security council aspect of the UN... other areas such as healthcare, famine etc. do a brilliant job on an unprecedented scale.

As for security, it is hampered by the constant veto of actions by America (and to a much lesser extent Russia). The success of the UN can be achieved simply by countries trying to bypass their specific Foreign Policy aims in favour of collective action.

America vetoes UN resolutions because it is seen as incompetent, yet it is only incompetent because of the vetoes.

In any case, the UN is nowhere near a failure.

[NanoSpores]

eliminate the wide sweeping rights of corperate entities.

dissolve the Fed, split the country up into, at least, 4 countries, but as many as 40. As is, we are checked an balance right out of democracy.

bring military home. defense=defense, not offense.

promote green energy, and true organic farming.

focus on real education.

religion is not the answer. read "the end of faith" by sam harris. enter secular humanism.

etc.

[unriggable]

Agree with Caesar - it is engrained in all of our minds at this point. As it has evolved, God has become more and more distant from our minds. The only problem are the reverends who use religion to help their own interests.

[Stopper]

I beg to differ. There are many that still practice their religion. However that wasn't my point. Christianity and its values have been the basis of the mentality of the Western World. It's kind of a spillover effect. While you might not be a practising Christian, you are still imbued with the values of Christianity that society has impressed on you.

This makes me curious, because this is a canard I see repeated over and over again, but without any justification, and sometimes it appears to said to try and persuade people of the benefits of Christianity through the back door.

It's certainly the case that Christianity has had a huge effect on Western society and beyond, but it doesn't follow that many of these effects were actually desirable, or that the values that Western society holds now can be ascribed to Christianity. In fact, some values we now hold dear are a reaction against Christianity, such as secular government, freedom of speech, and so on.

Not only that, but many of the so-called "Christian" values we are supposed to hold are held widely in non-Christian societies, because they are universal amongst humans anyway - do to others as you'd have done unto yourself.

If western society were still genuinely Christian, then we'd have a REAL clash of civilisations with Muslim society on our hands. Again.

[cowshrptrn]

eliminate the wide sweeping rights of corperate entities.

I do agree that we need to discipline corporations more, and revoke charters when necessary. But thats more of a problem of corruption. I believe we can have corporations peacefully coexisting with the government, so long as there are sufficient safeguards against giving them too much political influence. I think they should be cut into smaller companies to prevent this semi-monopolization of the marketplace.

dissolve the Fed, split the country up into, at least, 4 countries, but as many as 40. As is, we are checked an balance right out of democracy.

this might be going a bit far. We're united enough as a country to have a federal system, not a series of unitary systems. Different regions may have started to be at odds with each other, but for now we're peaceful enough. Besides, we need opposing viewpoints to keep the government form going radical in either direction. We can't go completely right wing, ultra conservative, nor can we go ultra liberal. By forcing these opposing regions together we even each other out.

[unriggable]

If western society were still genuinely Christian, then we'd have a REAL clash of civilisations with Muslim society on our hands. Again.

Not so much that as much as rule of law and the fact that kings were said not to be invincible. It gave a lot of hope to those who read it, and therefore it got appeal. I also assume it was written more excitingly, I've read most of it and it isn't exactly 'top notch'.

[Blueoctober]

And the UN is a joke...a failure of epic proportions led by corrupt and incompetent people.

Ruben, I assume you only mean the security council aspect of the UN... other areas such as healthcare, famine etc. do a brilliant job on an unprecedented scale.

As for security, it is hampered by the constant veto of actions by America (and to a much lesser extent Russia). The success of the UN can be achieved simply by countries trying to bypass their specific Foreign Policy aims in favour of collective action.

America vetoes UN resolutions because it is seen as incompetent, yet it is only incompetent because of the vetoes.

In any case, the UN is nowhere near a failure.

when was the last time UN sanctions did...well anything?

[pancakemix]

I think they took Kim Jong Il's Harley...

[wolvenlightning]

For the record, the fact that the US gives a lot to the UN shouldn't impact how much say the US has. Everyone acknowledges that the US government has issues with corruption and that its representatives are puppets of lobbyists.


Why are the representatives puppets? Because the lobbies give the reps money, publicity, and other support.

If you have an issue with the influence of lobbyists on the US government, then you should also have an issue with the disproportionate US control over the UN and international affairs in general. It's the same thing as lobbyists buying influence, which everyone has been saying is a bad thing.




Not saying it's going to happen, because hey, let's be realistic - people look out for their own self-interest. That's why we paid attention to the genocide in Iraq - look who has oil! At this point, Darfur is finally getting some more attention, but I'd like anyone who replies to this post to know where sierra leone is and what its problems are before they attempt to tell me I'm wrong. Whether or not you all decide to care is your own problem.



Furthermore, term limits and more extensive campaign finance reforms need to be imposed. Once the focus is off of getting re-elected, we can make some progress. However, as it stands, American politicians spend far too much of their time trying to raise money and far too little of their time attending hearings on the thousands of bills that flood the Hill between elections. The issue with campaign finance reforms is that the first amendment comes into play...


After reading some of the posts here, I'm also thinking that personal finance needs to be more regulated as well. If you have tons and tons of money wasting away, you should be taxed on it. I'm sure you patriots have no problem with that - it's all for the sake of the stars and stripes. If you're using it, then you're at least keeping the economy moving, so you shouldn't get penalized for that. And if you don't have it at all, then there's nothing to tax in the first place.

To put it in a nutshell - focus less on taxing income and more on taxing standing money. Who cares how much you make - if the economy is truly to be fixed, it's not the flowing capital that needs to be routed, it's the stagnating capital. That shouldn't violate the first amendment, based on the fact that it's still a taxation of money, just at a different stage of said money's tenure under your name.



I would also like some power to choose where your tax money goes. This prevents the federal budget from falling into the hands of a small number of people and allows the people themselves to have a say on where their money goes.


Don't bother to tell me that the people can contact their representatives to impact the federal budget. We already went over corruption on the hill. Furthermore, not everyone's representative is on the ways and means committee, so not everyone's representative would have a say on the matter anyway.

And yes, I do see the danger in a situation like this, so I do believe that the federal government should still retain a measure of control over the budget - perhaps the people have control over 25 to 50 percent of their tax dollars and the government controls the rest.

Also realize that within the major categories of 'agriculture', 'education', etcetera are individual projects that the government can still control.



I'm just saying it would be a better way to determine the opinion of the people at large, rather than the opinion of the people as stated by the representatives, which is never terribly accurate with our system of representation.

[Titanic]

Sierra Leone is in Western Africa. Its a fairly small country, which was in civil ar throughout the 90's, and then the UN and British sent peackeepers to end it. I think it was a french colony to begin with, and the civil war was over the diamond trade but I'm not sure. Blood Diamond (film with Leonardo di Caprio) is based on the diamond trade duringt he civil war there.

More info - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierra_Leone

[static_ice]

sorry im too lazy to read so many pages of everyone's opinion, so I'll just give my initial two cents: obviously no one in America is smart enough to fix all the problems, and even if there is someone, they will never be able to use their "system" because politicians are idiots and will never approve of that "system". The only way to fix the US is to invest everything into education so our children can be geniouses and fix all of our idiot problems.

[Guiscard]

when was the last time UN sanctions did...well anything?

Where have UN sanctions been successful?

* Libya. It is frequently cited as a sanctions success story. Under broad U.S. and UN sanctions pressure, the government of Muammar el-Qaddafi admitted to responsibility for the 1988 Lockerbie bombings and renounced its weapons of mass destruction program, paving the way for the lifting of sanctions, as well as normalization of relations with the United States in May 2006. Lopez says crucial to the success of the Libyan sanctions was the engagement of the United States. “Sanctions which are meant to focus on engaged bargaining with the target and the supporters of the target seem to be more successful than sanctions that are meant to isolate and punish,” he says.

* The former Yugoslavia. Comprehensive arms and economic sanctions after the war with Croatia and at the end of the Bosnian war, in which the former Yugoslavia backed Bosnian Serbs, weakened the regime of Slobodan Milosevic and helped push it toward accession to the Dayton Accords in 1995. Former top U.S. diplomats such as Richard C. Holbrooke and Warren Zimmerman say that sanctions were a major bargaining chip with Belgrade in the early 1990s. But experts point out the sanctions didn’t substantively change the regime’s behavior, and it again faced sanctions for cracking down on ethnic Albanians in Kosovo in 1998 and 1999, ultimately leading to NATO air strikes.

* Liberia. Some experts see the UN sanctions on Liberia’s lucrative timber trade in 2003, added to existing sanctions, as contributing to the downfall of President Charles Taylor, who now awaits a war crimes trial in The Hague. Lopez says Liberia is an example of a recent UN case where the sanctions were eventually paired with larger multilateral efforts like European Union aid or UN peacekeeping. “Sanctions within a larger framework of dispute resolution become more robust and more effective,” he said. “The Liberia situation is one of the chief ones.”

(Those aren't my words however... from the Council on Foreign Relations if you're interested)