The United States; ravaged by years of socialism, is now left broken and bankrupt

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...entatives.html

US debt crisis: Republican budget proposal passed in House of Representatives

• The House of Representatives on Friday night passed a bill designed to end the looming US debt crisis, but amid high level warnings that Congress was "playing with fire", it faced almost certain defeat in the Senate.
• United States has until August 2nd to raise debt limit or default on its debt, causing a shutdown of government as government will not be able to borrow money.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/...A_1960275c.jpg

'I stuck my neck out a mile to get an agreement with the president of the United States,' Mr Boehner (L) said, referring to failed negotiations with Mr Obama earlier this month.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Telegraph

Hours after President Barack Obama called for Republicans and Democrats to put party politics aside, the Republican-controlled House scraped through a bill by just eight votes, even though Democrats, who control the Senate, had warned that it was unacceptable and "extremist". John Boehner, the Republican Speaker of the House, gave an impassioned appeal to his colleagues in the House to approve his plan, slamming his fist on the podium several times. "I stuck my neck out a mile to get an agreement with the president of the United States," he said, referring to failed negotiations with Mr Obama earlier this month.

"My colleagues, I can tell you I have worked with the president and the administration since the beginning of this year to avoid being in this spot," he added. "A lot of people in this town can never say yes." With the vote out of the way after two days of high drama, negotiations immediately started on a compromise bill that would be started in the Senate by Democrats and then go back to the House.

It might then pick up enough votes across both parties to pass before Tuesday's deadline to raise the so-called debt ceiling. There is a however real danger that Congress will not meet the deadline set by the US Treasury, which could mean that the US fails to pay its creditors for the first time. The government may also fail to fund state pensions, student loans, military salaries, contracts with businesses and a gamut of routine payments. World leaders have warned of the dire consequences for the global economy of a US default.

There has been dismay at the dysfunction in Washington, with World Bank President Robert Zoellick saying the United States was "playing with fire". "Whatever the logic about the tactics, it's a very dangerous environment," he told a meeting of the Society for International Development. "To be blunt, to have a debt default in the United States would not only be a financial calamity but should be an embarrassment for every American" he said. America's largest foreign creditor, China, has repeatedly urged Washington to protect its dollar investments and its state-run news agency said the US had been "kidnapped" by "dangerously irresponsible" politics.

Fears about the health of America's economy multiplied after an official report showed weaker than expected growth in the second quarter, raising the risk of recession. It was always assumed that after weeks of grandstanding in Washington a debt deal would be reached with a week or so to spare. But even seasoned observers of political theatre on Capitol Hill have been dumbstruck by the failure to find a compromise so far. Even if Washington paid its creditors, the spectacle of devastating political failure would probably unnerve markets and possibly lead to a lowering of its triple-A credit rating.


Mr Boehner has faced a major rebellion by members of the Tea Party wing of his caucus, who were elected vowing not increase taxes or spending. They refused to support his first bill on Thursday night but last night sufficient numbers supported a revised plan, which allowed raising the debt ceiling on a short-term basis but only if future Congresses were required by law to balance the budget. Earlier in the day, the president and Democratic leaders in Congress said that if even if the Boehner plan was approved, they would oppose it.

"There is not going to be any agreement to a short term solution," said Senator Harry Reid, leader of the Democratic majority in the Senate. "The stakes could not be higher, the security of our nation, literally, and every family is at stake here." Speaking earlier at the White House, Mr Obama warned that the country's top credit rating was at risk after leading credit agencies said they were likely to issue a downgrade.

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHQoUvxzyZM

As Ron Paul states, both the Republicans and the Democrats are not being serious - the United States needs real cuts (unlike the United Kingdom) which will balance the budget, that means ending or stripping back social security payments which are expected to eventually take up all of federal spending in a few decades and closing down the U.S. military machine.

The future looks bleak for the United States and the western world, this is what socialism leads to though. When you have government education systems, government run healthcare and so forth - it all ends in tears, just ask Greece. As I wrote in my latest blog;

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myself, the Conservative Blog

Debt default dawns for the U.S.

The ongoing crisis in the United States concerning the debt ceiling rambles on, giving me the hope that the Republican Party has, for the moment, finally grown a backbone and is refusing to raise the limit (which isn’t a real limit when you can simply move the goalposts). With no real spending cuts on the horizon from any mainstream Republican though, the deckchairs on the USS America are being moved yet again while across the Pacific Ocean a new, shiny and efficent ship is being built to replace her.

---

Thoughts? should the U.S. default on its debts and suffer the short term pain, or should the U.S. continue down the road of borrowing more to pay for its unrealistic style of government? (that applies to ourselves aswell).

Who i'm most interested to hear from though, are those supporters of big government on here now that the results are in. Anyone?

The politics game is so thickle.

It's irrelevant, non-sensical showbiz. Go on, enlighten me as-to how exactly we can blame this on socialism?

If the US Government collapses, what the **** happens?

i think every country in the world is a mess one way or another haha

I'm more fascinated by the US sticking its nose into monetary problems of other nations like Greece, attempting to give advice when they're possibly worse off. Someone said "The West knows nothing of money", and interestingly, I think that quote is going to last for a very, very long time :P It sums up Europe and America perfectly, they are greedy, senseless people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manhattan

The politics game is so thickle.

It's irrelevant, non-sensical showbiz. Go on, enlighten me as-to how exactly we can blame this on socialism?

---

It is the fault of socialism because the United States has been very much in the grip (like ourselves) of the Republicratic Party which believes in a big government, and with big government comes a big bill. When you have government in every aspect of the lives of the people (which is what socialism is) then the bill to pay for this also becomes very big indeed. 'Free' healthcare, 'free' education, military bases dotted around the world while fighting five wars.. the U.S. is heading the way of the British Empire.

I think time is, sadly, catching up on the United States and the sun is setting, there are people out there to save it but it will require people actually using their brains when going out to vote and not having the typical attitude of 'the government owes me this, that and this' - judging by polls for Ron Pauls 2012 Presidential bid more people are awake than last time, but it looks bleak.

So I know nothing about this stuff nor do I pretend to. How is this going to effect people in the UK?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

It is the fault of socialism because the United States has been very much in the grip (like ourselves) of the Republicratic Party which believes in a big government, and with big government comes a big bill. When you have government in every aspect of the lives of the people (which is what socialism is) then the bill to pay for this also becomes very big indeed. 'Free' healthcare, 'free' education, military bases dotted around the world while fighting five wars.. the U.S. is heading the way of the British Empire.

I think time is, sadly, catching up on the United States and the sun is setting, there are people out there to save it but it will require people actually using their brains when going out to vote and not having the typical attitude of 'the government owes me this, that and this' - judging by polls for Ron Pauls 2012 Presidential bid more people are awake than last time, but it looks bleak.

---

So you would rather the rich jerk each other off and the poor get crushed under the wheels?

I for one believe that if one aspect of government fails, we should all go down with it until we can get it back. I'm glad the U.S is heading the way of the British empire, it proves that the US as the reserve currency has failed, lied, decieved and hurt millions of innocent lives. This is a crime that ALL citizens who backed any sort of war USA got into, whether it be in mesopotamia, asia or africa, and the everyday citizens deserve to carry the guilt on their back until they are deceased.

It mind sound like a very bitter argument, but do you not realize that on the one hand we are quick to blame the services that keep us alive, but fail to examine the fact that black on black crime is getting bigger than every and that shooting consist of a large portion of where the money goes to, including self-inflicted cancer and alcoholism. This is the logic I can't understand, we blame political parties rather than ourselves. Silly things like keeping cannabis in the black market is a sure-fire way to lead impoverished kids out of the school route and into the gun-toting gangster imagine that no real gangster would actually achieve.

It's not about right or left, I firmly believe that each party, with any agenda will fail due to the undeniable fact that there are people who have achieved a place of influence that no politican can deny, lobbying is the norm and this is simply not acceptable. Likewise in wars, no matter how much you mask it up with the word terrorism, there is always one party that stands to gain monetary value from it.

The government does owe people something, and it is something that they have never managed to achieve, it's two simple steps. Transparency and not making things complex to outsiders with ridiculous political and economic jargon.

In response to your signature, what if I present you this quote:

'A government big enough to give you everything you need is also big enough to take it all away from you'

This is not a direct insult to the likes of socialism, in fact it is rather the opposite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niall!

So I know nothing about this stuff nor do I pretend to. How is this going to effect people in the UK?

---

It varies. Shares in the US by UK companies and individuals will and are in a mess. Some products will become expensive to buy as they will be more difficult to produce in the US (or UK if an organisation has the facilities here to create products). Basically belts will tighten in the US, meaning US brands and services which rely on the US. Someone maybe able to explain it better, but that's from what I understood from an accountancy firm I heard wittering on about the US debt problems.

Good news for Vodaphone shareholders though, they should be getting quite a lot of money thanks to Verizon doing so well in the US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manhattan

The politics game is so thickle.

It's irrelevant, non-sensical showbiz. Go on, enlighten me as-to how exactly we can blame this on socialism?

---

Excellent comment. This is just political show boating by the democrats trying to force Obama away from his policies. Storm in a 'tea party' cup. It has happened before when the Republicans get hold of the Senate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manhattan

So you would rather the rich jerk each other off and the poor get crushed under the wheels?

---

Actually no, i'm calling for the poor and the rich to keep their own money and spend it how they like rather than the government doing it for them, usually wasting it and spending it on things of which the people (usually the poorest) do not need. That is why i'm calling for a default; the investors who lent to the out-of-control U.S. government deserve to lose their money because it was and is a bad deal - why should the American taxpayer (both rich and poor) pay for their own governments stupidity along with the stupidity of those who lent to the government?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manhattan

It mind sound like a very bitter argument, but do you not realize that on the one hand we are quick to blame the services that keep us alive, but fail to examine the fact that black on black crime is getting bigger than every and that shooting consist of a large portion of where the money goes to, including self-inflicted cancer and alcoholism. This is the logic I can't understand, we blame political parties rather than ourselves. Silly things like keeping cannabis in the black market is a sure-fire way to lead impoverished kids out of the school route and into the gun-toting gangster imagine that no real gangster would actually achieve.

---

Well there's two arguments there, as for government healthcare it doesn't work and the NHS is a key example of this here in the United Kingdom as is the government regulated medical system in the United States.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manhattan

It's not about right or left, I firmly believe that each party, with any agenda will fail due to the undeniable fact that there are people who have achieved a place of influence that no politican can deny, lobbying is the norm and this is simply not acceptable. Likewise in wars, no matter how much you mask it up with the word terrorism, there is always one party that stands to gain monetary value from it.

---

I agree, a good point on the lobbying also.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manhattan

The government does owe people something, and it is something that they have never managed to achieve, it's two simple steps. Transparency and not making things complex to outsiders with ridiculous political and economic jargon.

In response to your signature, what if I present you this quote:

'A government big enough to give you everything you need is also big enough to take it all away from you'

This is not a direct insult to the likes of socialism, in fact it is rather the opposite.

---

That is socialism i'm afraid, big government is at the heart of socialism. The idea that, the government can provide jobs, services, healthcare, medical care, social services and so forth - it can't, and it spends an awful amount of money trying to do what it cannot do. Unlike private business, government does not understand how to be efficent and doesn't have to fight for its share of the market - it simply uses legislation to make people customers of its bad services.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catzsy

Excellent comment. This is just political show boating by the democrats trying to force Obama away from his policies. Storm in a 'tea party' cup. It has happened before when the Republicans get hold of the Senate.

---

So nothing at all to do with the fact that the U.S. has $14tn+ of debts due to spending more than it could afford!? (from both parties)

I had to post an update for the proposed 'deal' thats being floated, here's the real truth;

Quote:

---

"Unfunded liabilities are conservatively estimated to be over $80 trillion, pensions, mediacare, medicare,

The real figure is probably much higher"

---

Says that even if this proposed debt deal is passed (1.8tn 'cuts' over next decade) it won't even pay the debt interest let alone the debt which currently stands at $14tn+ excluding unfunded liabilities like healthcare etc.

Dan, I bet Manhattan is another account of yours which you've made to debate with :P

Oh, how exciting, an adequate response. But it's not the truth. Bear in mind I'm probably not in the right state of mind at 5:50 to debate politics with someone who's so invovled, so excuse me if my words can be deemed misconstruing, however should I make such mistakes, next time I have at least 2 hours sleep I will fix them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Actually no, i'm calling for the poor and the rich to keep their own money and spend it how they like rather than the government doing it for them, usually wasting it and spending it on things of which the people (usually the poorest) do not need. That is why i'm calling for a default; the investors who lent to the out-of-control U.S. government deserve to lose their money because it was and is a bad deal - why should the American taxpayer (both rich and poor) pay for their own governments stupidity along with the stupidity of those who lent to the government?

---

This is where problems begin to arise, you say it doesn't work however it is the only tangible, fair and remotely adequate health service that can be provided for the masses. Imagine the pain people go through, living in a western society, everyone is so concerned in their little bubbles and yet the man on the sidewalk can't afford to replace his knee because he fell over, that sort of stuff doesn't just reduce your short-term abilities, it's essentially a real disaster for a long-term well being. This is what the American Tax Payer pays for, or atleast SHOULD be paying for. Regardless if that man in question spends his whole entire life drinking out until his liver explodes into a putrid cesspool, we should ALL acknowlege the fact he deserves to live the way he wants, just as you deserve to be able to ignore him and his pain as you walk past him down the street.



Interesting, you agree with me on lobbying, why not examine exactly what you agree with; do you agree with the whole statement, if so how can you possibily pin the blame on a leftist government without acknowleging that I believe that a right wing government would have the same problem if not worse. I guess I should tell you now, before you begin discussing economics with me that I believe it's simply.. how do I put it.. non-existent. I believe that these problems arise from a higher order. Let's not be silly here, we all know that politicans are simply there to give you the illusion of free will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

That is socialism i'm afraid, big government is at the heart of socialism. The idea that, the government can provide jobs, services, healthcare, medical care, social services and so forth - it can't, and it spends an awful amount of money trying to do what it cannot do. Unlike private business, government does not understand how to be efficent and doesn't have to fight for its share of the market - it simply uses legislation to make people customers of its bad services.

---

This is where it gets interesting. Should a government not be able to provide such basic standards of living for all, how can anyone be expected to abide within the rules and laws of a democratic country? I don't believe for one second that rights are in written in cement, I don't have to look any further than how the Japanese Americans were treated in 1942 to understand that rights are simply a privilege. When the Japanese community needed their rights more than ever, it was simply swept from under them and the only right there were left with was 'right this way to the concentration camp'. The bits I highlighted in bold are what we consider to be our rights. At the VERY least, the government should be only working on preserving those things, not cutting them down to little bits as you would so have it.

In terms of the amount of money on things it cannot do, what do you suggest it does? Cuts off public services as if nothing ever happened? That's simply unimaginable in my opinion, but you tell me what the conversative party would do about the debt?

But, you seem to believe that the government is not 'fighting against anything' and yet you agree with my point on lobbying. It might just be me but that's a little bit of a double standard. How can we possibly differentiate the business world from the politics world after all these things have happened, the federal reserve etc etc. You pretty much said it yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

So nothing at all to do with the fact that the U.S. has $14tn+ of debts due to spending more than it could afford!? (from both parties)

---

FROM BOTH PARTIES!

Do you remember in 2008, the whole world was agreeing with each other that Bush was responsible for the debt we will face in 4 years. Am I the only person left that remembers that? I will find you the broadcast I watched and it says exactly that explicitly. This is why I find it odd that now, people are beginning to shift the blame to the other government and fail to acknowlege that this is our fault as much as it is these useless and unworthy politicians.

Let's be sincere here, in my opinion you're simply masking your survival of the fittest ideologies behind the gaze of a business and economic mask. It all appears to be a weak bluff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catzsy

Excellent comment. This is just political show boating by the Republicans trying to force Obama away from his policies. Storm in a 'tea party' cup. It has happened before when the Democrats get hold of the Senate.

---

Just wanted to correct you because it's irritating me. Obama is a Democrat.

Anyway, I'm just going to say this - every Western Government is too big, too over-bearing and spends far too much. I honestly believe we should revert to Governments of the (for example) 19th Century in SIZE & GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE. In those days they made the laws. That was all. This would be SO much simpler, and allow a completely free market for things currently monopolized by the Government (Health Care for example).

If we downsized the Government so that its only job was to make laws and defend us - not take our money and spend it on stuff we don't want - then life would be so much better.

Everything would be privatised obviously - hospitals, social care, media companies - except the army. That would mean minimal taxes and more money available for consumers to spend, along with the Government having to spend less and which is why we would have less taxes.

I am not against the NHS - I honestly benefit from it quite a lot, considering my current treatment is more than the average salary annually - however the spending on it is ludicrous.

There is one way we can keep the NHS in my proposed system, but it would be on this condition. ONLY treat those who suffer illnesses in which it is not their fault. For example - someone born with a congenital heart defect - it's not their fault - they get treated for free. Someone who smokes heavily, drinks heavily and is overweight who suffers a heart problem - they have to pay for their treatment - because it's self-inflicted. Why should we treat people who have self-inflicted illness?
This would, I believe, bring down obesity, smoking & alcoholism levels.

Unfortunately none of the above will happens because the Government is too stupid, greedy & senseless to see it's what we need. Roll on recession 2012.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conservative,

Just wanted to correct you because it's irritating me. Obama is a Democrat.

Anyway, I'm just going to say this - every Western Government is too big, too over-bearing and spends far too much. I honestly believe we should revert to Governments of the (for example) 19th Century in SIZE & GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE. In those days they made the laws. That was all. This would be SO much simpler, and allow a completely free market for things currently monopolized by the Government (Health Care for example).

If we downsized the Government so that its only job was to make laws and defend us - not take our money and spend it on stuff we don't want - then life would be so much better.

Everything would be privatised obviously - hospitals, social care, media companies - except the army. That would mean minimal taxes and more money available for consumers to spend, along with the Government having to spend less and which is why we would have less taxes.

I am not against the NHS - I honestly benefit from it quite a lot, considering my current treatment is more than the average salary annually - however the spending on it is ludicrous.

There is one way we can keep the NHS in my proposed system, but it would be on this condition. ONLY treat those who suffer illnesses in which it is not their fault. For example - someone born with a congenital heart defect - it's not their fault - they get treated for free. Someone who smokes heavily, drinks heavily and is overweight who suffers a heart problem - they have to pay for their treatment - because it's self-inflicted. Why should we treat people who have self-inflicted illness?
This would, I believe, bring down obesity, smoking & alcoholism levels.

Unfortunately none of the above will happens because the Government is too stupid, greedy & senseless to see it's what we need. Roll on recession 2012.

---

Because maybe those people have issues? To be honest, the NHS shouldn't run on how the problem occurred, rather then if they could afford it. And if someone could afford the cigarettes, drinks and the excess food they could most likely pay it off on a short term loan. I mean, when I was in hospital there was someone in there for months, imagine how much that would cost. There were many people there I'm sure could not afford it. And besides, you could quite easily debate what was self inflicted so there is a very vague borderline in what you suggested. So basically a loan system for those who can easily pay it off in 5 years or so, but obviously those who wouldn't be able to pay it off easily would get the treatment for free. I'm sure there are people on a very comfortable salary who could pay a £10,000 operation off in a few years, for example. The NHS should not go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manhattan

I believe that these problems arise from a higher order. Let's not be silly here, we all know that politicans are simply there to give you the illusion of free will.

---

Hmm interesting, are you a determinist? What higher order do you think problems arise from? I agree btw. Those in power will naturally try to remain in power and enjoy its privileges so politicians can never truly be a (wo)man for the people as by disrupting the status quo, they could lose that power so problems need to remain as they are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Inseriousity.

Hmm interesting, are you a determinist? What higher order do you think problems arise from? I agree btw. Those in power will naturally try to remain in power and enjoy its privileges so politicians can never truly be a (wo)man for the people as by disrupting the status quo, they could lose that power so problems need to remain as they are.

---

I firmly believe in determinism. In terms of worldly politics, I believe that the notion of a higher power began at the same time the banking system was introduced to Europe by the Jewish. Do not take this the wrong way, I am not an anti-semite. Jews are not allowed to charge their 'brothers' interest on a loan, that is why they set up the banking system in Italy, a predominantly catholic country, it has been ever since Christianity existed. Therefore, with this in mind, and how we all know that big banker families would never give their company or trade to someone who was not part of the heritage.

No, I'm not saying Jewish people run the world, that would be silly of me. However I know - with all the truth I can possibly put into words that there ARE billion dollar corporations and enterprises that have enough money and power within all the political systems to get what they want. Whether I believe these problems exist in the USA, all of Western Europe, the African content especially the north, certain arabic lands such as Saudi Arabia and of course now it's beginning to affect Mesopotamia.
I'm still unsure about Asia, I've never visited any asian country, however it wouldn't surprise me if the largest contient in the world had similar problems.

This is what I think is funny about western society. I had to spend three years of my life living in a North african country. I spoke to people about their system, I've seen mines explode on the beach and cause horrific injuries to kids, bombs placed in cars outside a police training academy full of young people who were just trying to get a job to support their family. Everybody knew and openly accepted that the government was and still is plotting against them, with monoply, the idea of homegrown terrorism (Believe it or not terrorists actually attacked little villages - the army, as usual are told to stand down). However, I now find myself back in England and the similarities are striking. I don't believe for one second this country isn't as corrupt as some countries us westerners love to pin the blame on, I just think it's a lot more well hidden.

Time and time again it boils down to the same basic tactic of warfare, plotting people against each other. Our power lies in the acceptance of others no matter what race creed or background. As soon as we've decided to not follow these lying thieving bankers and politicians we will have a better world, without a doubt. It's a huge disappointment for me, the human race could spend it's time exploring and understanding the universe, learning about other dimensions and accepting the irrelevance of worldly assets, but we'd rather fight against each other.

In terms of determinism, I'm rather extreme when it comes to the notion of free will. However that's another discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manhattan

I firmly believe in determinism. In terms of worldly politics, I believe that the notion of a higher power began at the same time the banking system was introduced to Europe by the Jewish. Do not take this the wrong way, I am not an anti-semite. Jews are not allowed to charge their 'brothers' interest on a loan, that is why they set up the banking system in Italy, a predominantly catholic country, it has been ever since Christianity existed. Therefore, with this in mind, and how we all know that big banker families would never give their company or trade to someone who was not part of the heritage.

No, I'm not saying Jewish people run the world, that would be silly of me. However I know - with all the truth I can possibly put into words that there ARE billion dollar corporations and enterprises that have enough money and power within all the political systems to get what they want. Whether I believe these problems exist in the USA, all of Western Europe, the African content especially the north, certain arabic lands such as Saudi Arabia and of course now it's beginning to affect Mesopotamia.
I'm still unsure about Asia, I've never visited any asian country, however it wouldn't surprise me if the largest contient in the world had similar problems.

This is what I think is funny about western society. I had to spend three years of my life living in a North african country. I spoke to people about their system, I've seen mines explode on the beach and cause horrific injuries to kids, bombs placed in cars outside a police training academy full of young people who were just trying to get a job to support their family. Everybody knew and openly accepted that the government was and still is plotting against them, with monoply, the idea of homegrown terrorism (Believe it or not terrorists actually attacked little villages - the army, as usual are told to stand down). However, I now find myself back in England and the similarities are striking. I don't believe for one second this country isn't as corrupt as some countries us westerners love to pin the blame on, I just think it's a lot more well hidden.

Time and time again it boils down to the same basic tactic of warfare, plotting people against each other. Our power lies in the acceptance of others no matter what race creed or background. As soon as we've decided to not follow these lying thieving bankers and politicians we will have a better world, without a doubt. It's a huge disappointment for me, the human race could spend it's time exploring and understanding the universe, learning about other dimensions and accepting the irrelevance of worldly assets, but we'd rather fight against each other.

In terms of determinism, I'm rather extreme when it comes to the notion of free will. However that's another discussion.

---

I was the only extreme/hard determinist in my RE class when we were discussing this topic so it's always interesting to hear other people's views. And I agree with you that the governments of western regimes are as corrupt, possibly even more, than other countries.

Bankrupt, possibly. Broken? I've always admired how patriotic America seems to be (or maybe it's just a stereotype) and don't think they'll ever break.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Inseriousity.

Bankrupt, possibly. Broken? I've always admired how patriotic America seems to be (or maybe it's just a stereotype) and don't think they'll ever break.

---

What is there to admire about patriotism? Being happy to live in a country and embracing it's culture is one thing, but I don't understand the word patriotic. Besides, the backbone of American society is patriotism, sadly it's only as strong as the structures that support it's society. People are beginning to realize that they're getting dragged around by the neck, I hope I live to see the collapse of the government.. Destruction always has to come before reconstruction, otherwise the foundations are too weak.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

It is the fault of socialism because the United States has been very much in the grip (like ourselves) of the Republicratic Party which believes in a big government, and with big government comes a big bill.

---

O dear Undertaker. Up until this comment I thought you a very clever person who knows his stuff! Go read Reagan's inaugural address and then tell everyone how the Republican party believes in big government :/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manhattan

Oh, how exciting, an adequate response. But it's not the truth. Bear in mind I'm probably not in the right state of mind at 5:50 to debate politics with someone who's so invovled, so excuse me if my words can be deemed misconstruing, however should I make such mistakes, next time I have at least 2 hours sleep I will fix them.

---

What parts 'arent the truth'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manhattan

This is where problems begin to arise, you say it doesn't work however it is the only tangible, fair and remotely adequate health service that can be provided for the masses. Imagine the pain people go through, living in a western society, everyone is so concerned in their little bubbles and yet the man on the sidewalk can't afford to replace his knee because he fell over, that sort of stuff doesn't just reduce your short-term abilities, it's essentially a real disaster for a long-term well being.

---

Wrong, Singapore only spends around 3% of its GDP on healthcare and has a private healthcare system with little government interference and has good quality care. The United Kingdom prior to the NHS also had a good healthcare system (for the time) which even doctors were unwilling to break up (thus the government had to 'stuff their mouths with gold' - at the expense of the taxpayer to get the doctors to go along with it. Before the NHS, the poor were treated freely anyway and it is the same with the United States. Ron Paul, a Doctor himself, remembers that private hospitals used to treat the poor free/for a lowered charge as an act of charity - because they had money to spare along with nothing to gain by putting poorer people through the system (government bribes).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manhattan

This is what the American Tax Payer pays for, or atleast SHOULD be paying for. Regardless if that man in question spends his whole entire life drinking out until his liver explodes into a putrid cesspool, we should ALL acknowlege the fact he deserves to live the way he wants, just as you deserve to be able to ignore him and his pain as you walk past him down the street.

---

He should be allowed to live how he wants I agree, just as he chose himself to spend his earnings on drink as opposed to healthcare. This 'let people do what they want but we'll pick up the tab' attitude only leads to him not placing a value upon his own healthcare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manhattan

Interesting, you agree with me on lobbying, why not examine exactly what you agree with; do you agree with the whole statement, if so how can you possibily pin the blame on a leftist government without acknowleging that I believe that a right wing government would have the same problem if not worse. I guess I should tell you now, before you begin discussing economics with me that I believe it's simply.. how do I put it.. non-existent. I believe that these problems arise from a higher order. Let's not be silly here, we all know that politicans are simply there to give you the illusion of free will.

---

I don't claim that a right-wing government would be corruption free, if it was corrupt then I simply wouldn't vote for it come next election. Besides, corruption is largely a result of consensus politics (which we have a left wing consensus in this country between the three main parties) which leads to corruption because there is no opposition. If we had a real opposition, it would hold the government of the day to account on corruption.. but this does not happen because we have no opposition.

The same can be said for the invasion of Iraq where the opposition failed to do its job, and look at the mess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manhattan

This is where it gets interesting. Should a government not be able to provide such basic standards of living for all, how can anyone be expected to abide within the rules and laws of a democratic country? I don't believe for one second that rights are in written in cement, I don't have to look any further than how the Japanese Americans were treated in 1942 to understand that rights are simply a privilege. When the Japanese community needed their rights more than ever, it was simply swept from under them and the only right there were left with was 'right this way to the concentration camp'. The bits I highlighted in bold are what we consider to be our rights. At the VERY least, the government should be only working on preserving those things, not cutting them down to little bits as you would so have it.

---

Well hang on, you're talking about two issues here. You have a right to your liberty but not a right to take from others/harm others. In terms of the Japanese in the United States - I totally agree. But here you are confusing entitlement programmes with liberties. In terms of entitlements from the government, in a free market society we would be able to chop away at social security bit by bit and hopefully eventually turn it into a minimal safety net as its intended to be, rather than 'government looks after you'.

One way to do this without throwing people out on the streets who have come to expect from the government would be an opt-out that Ron Paul floated in the United States - you pay 10% of your wages to the government (for defence and the basics) but you do not ask for anything in return from the government; no healthcare, no state education and so forth. I think that is a very fair deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manhattan

In terms of the amount of money on things it cannot do, what do you suggest it does? Cuts off public services as if nothing ever happened? That's simply unimaginable in my opinion, but you tell me what the conversative party would do about the debt?

---

Cut back and privatise where possible, yes. The first non-needed things would go first; foreign aid, EU contributions, contributions to the NHS, government quangos, Brussels regulations, Whitehall regulations and the legions of regulation officers enforcing these things. One example of how bloated the public sector has become is that since Labour got into office in 1997, 800,000 extra people have been placed on the public payroll - and for what? have services improved? no, they haven't.

As I stated above, the opt-out idea would be a major step in reducing the state in a 'soft' way as opposed to a complete government shut down over the term of one parliament.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manhattan

But, you seem to believe that the government is not 'fighting against anything' and yet you agree with my point on lobbying. It might just be me but that's a little bit of a double standard. How can we possibly differentiate the business world from the politics world after all these things have happened, the federal reserve etc etc. You pretty much said it yourself.

---

Fighting what sorry? rather confused on your point here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manhattan

FROM BOTH PARTIES!

Do you remember in 2008, the whole world was agreeing with each other that Bush was responsible for the debt we will face in 4 years. Am I the only person left that remembers that? I will find you the broadcast I watched and it says exactly that explicitly. This is why I find it odd that now, people are beginning to shift the blame to the other government and fail to acknowlege that this is our fault as much as it is these useless and unworthy politicians.

---

I've made this point, that the Republicans are just as bad as the Democrats and the same with Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. As for the people, the people are not at fault and I fail to see how they are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manhattan

Let's be sincere here, in my opinion you're simply masking your survival of the fittest ideologies behind the gaze of a business and economic mask. It all appears to be a weak bluff.

---

Some examples would be nice, again this is too vague.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frodo13.

O dear Undertaker. Up until this comment I thought you a very clever person who knows his stuff! Go read Reagan's inaugural address and then tell everyone how the Republican party believes in big government :/

---

Reagan was as Mrs. Thatcher was, a one-off. Neither did all that much to reduce the size of the state, Thatcher for example kept state education growing with disasterous comprehensives and continued the NHS - Reagan on the other hand failed to close the federal departments of Education and so forth - all in all, the changes they made have been more or less reversed.