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

[-:Undertaker:-]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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)

[-:Undertaker:-]

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

"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.

[The Don]

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

[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.

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.

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.

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.

[Conservative,]

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.

[dbgtz]

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.

[Inseriousity.]

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.

[Manhattan]

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.

[Inseriousity.]

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.

[Manhattan]

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.