As you think.

And in how far does the attempt to abolish the taxes on heritage profitate anyone except the very wealthy? I am not up to date on this, dit that attempt fail? I think so, but its a good example of what the Administration aims at.

If Bush would like to foster the economy, there would have been far better ways to do so. The large Multis are not the ones making jobs, paying taxes and keep the nation running. Its the small and medium enterprises. Its the middle class, but still the ones that profitate from the immense tax cut dont belong to this group.

To make the rich richer while claiming to help the mass is a master piece of rethoric of your politicians.

Btw, you could also lower the taxes of the poor. Why not? In fact this would help the enconomy more than lowering the taxes of the rich. If the intend is to help the economy and indirectly the people of the US of A than why are not the taxes lowered for the poor and perhaps for the lower middle class?

Its a well known fact that poorer people safe less that means it goes fast back into the economy, they do consume locally and dont move huge amounts of money into foreign countries. Rich people, safe far more money, consume much more outside of the country, and also invest more outside etc. All in all, I just dont believe Bush just wants to help all Americans with that tax break he did.

Ok, thats a pretty contrary opinion to what I believe in. Wow.
We could argue on this for eons I guess, but just in short:

Health care: It should be no question that the best medical care should be availabe for everyone, even the more as the society can easily afford it as a whole. Its inhuman and damn egoistic to not take care for that. The possibility to live should be no question of money, i dont see the point why a porr man that needs a heart transplant should die and a rich one can live for example.

Welfare state: Its a win-win situation for both sides. It seems Americans dont really see it this way, but than I just can refer to Johannisburg compared to Vienna. In the former I guess more millionaries live like in the latter. Allthough my comparission is a bit humble it has a true core, do you see it? If you dont take care of the poor in the most rudimentary form at least, you end up in country where you have to fear for your life if you dare entering the towncenter. Allthough wellfare is no wonderthing, it does substantially ease that problem.
The wealthy are satisfied also with getting not all they earn, but in exchange find a place that is worth to live in and safe.

WRT Social security: Private pension fonds are one of the greatest danger to the global financial system, did you know? At least if they continue to grow that fast. The reach dimensions that can bring whole exchanges into tumbling. Moreover they all obey the same rules of economic law and will pour out money at the same time. Its an illusion that private forms of social security (I mean some sorf of it is essential, people simply can not work for their whole life, unless they should be shot when becoming inable to work at the age perhaps of 70 or so) would enable the society to ignore the facts of demographic developement. Its just that the correlation between both are hidden, till the first black friday comes.

...

__________________
When the Nazis came for the communists I remained silent, I was no communist.
When the Nazis came for the Unionists I remained silent, I was no Unionist.
When the Nazis came for the Social Democrats I remained silent, I was no Social Democrat.
When the Nazis came for the Jews I remained silent, I was no Jew.
When the Nazis came for me, there was no one left who could protest.

Afterreading this brownnation guy for some reason the old Control Voices of the Outer Limits comes to mind.

This guy has about as much grasp on reality as that old TV show did.

__________________

The universe grows smaller every day and the threat of aggression by any group anywhere can no longer be tolerated. There must be security for all or no one is secure... - Klaatu

Outer limits. cool thats a classic master piece of trash I love it.

Thats perhaps what holds me here at USPO jk

__________________
When the Nazis came for the communists I remained silent, I was no communist.
When the Nazis came for the Unionists I remained silent, I was no Unionist.
When the Nazis came for the Social Democrats I remained silent, I was no Social Democrat.
When the Nazis came for the Jews I remained silent, I was no Jew.
When the Nazis came for me, there was no one left who could protest.

If we are to call Afghanistan and Iraq proxy wars, then we risk labeling all wars to be proxy wars. I was mistaken in labeling Vietnam and Korea as proxy wars, since we became directly involved in a “police action” rather than having just thrown our finances and military assistance behind one side in the battle. However, battles during the Cold War generally were battles of ideology – capitalism versus socialism. In the post-Cold War era, it seems America needs another enemy to counter itself with: Afghanistan and Iraq are becoming characterized as America (civilization) versus extremists (terror). However, that generalization doesn’t acknowledge the nationals in those countries that want nothing more than to see a foreign occupying army to leave.

Afghanistan and Iraq are old fashioned imperialist wars. We have invaded the country, removed the previous government, installed a friendly one, and propped it up with a foreign army. When the mujahideen fought the Soviets, they were freedom fighters. Now, when the Muslims once again band together (extremists and all) to fight another occupation force, they are terrorists and insurgents. Also, if we have conjured this war on terror because of “the increased influence of Islamic extremism,” why did we target Iraq? Yes, Saddam has sponsored terror, but what about Pakistan or Saudi Arabia or Iran?

That is a relevant comparison, but I wouldn’t agree that it is very accurate. A team and a world region are far from similar, at all. Destabilizing a team may lead to some arguments, or a fist fight. Destabilizing a region will lead to violence and death. Also, to destabilize a region runs completely against your previous statement about the US interfering “to combat the growing chaos.”

Thanks for the source, I’ll check it out.

Yeah, I’d say that gives a good idea of my feelings. Maybe even better than I could have given.

I’ll admit that corporations have become dehumanized in my mind – they seem to be abstract organizations that somehow greatly influence our reality. In fact, they influence that media that has helped cause the dehumanization. I do understand that corporations are not evil entities and that they are made up of human beings with families much like my own – my concern rests with less-than-admirable CEOs and top administrators that don’t take into account some of the consequences of their actions; not only consequences toward foreign peoples, but also toward people in their own business. As you said, such cases are exemplified by Worldcom and Enron.

Anyway, could you elaborate on the problems caused by government safety nets? I know there is quite a scare government becoming too ‘big’. But what can we lose if the government were to provide health care to everyone, for example? Our freedoms are threatened with or without government social programs: the Patriot Act, for instance, or possible domestic spying. Check out some information on Echelon. Our privacy and rights must be protected not from just ‘big’ government, but government in general.

To do it painlessly is indeed impossible, but I think we agree on the point that if it is possible to reduce that pain without inflicting more, then we should go for it. One big example in my mind would be to stop our alleged ‘dumping’ techniques, when we flood a market with cheap grain and, once small family and national competition is destroyed, raise those prices to very profitable points.

Do “both?” If you mean do everything I listed there, then yes, I agree. Caring for one another and making sacrifices would be a great improvement to human society as a whole, but capitalism seems to encourage much more competition than cooperation.

I’m not very well read in American history, so could you describe some the sacrifices and changes that we had to go through to arrive where we are now? Also, given the context of the time period of when we made these changes, is it really logical to assume that other countries must go through the same process in modern times?

Nah, not Saddam’s head. More likely the vast amounts of oil beneath Saddam’s feet. I believe democracy was more of a pretext than anything; with such a divided nation, democracy is going to be a difficult institution to place upon them. Obviously, the previously dominant minority is not accepting it very well. As Franklin once said, “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.”

Yes, although I don’t mind someone resorting to that line when they found no where else to turn their argument.

I would argue against this. Some families do hold onto traditions from their heritage, but a great many of us have not. My heritage is Irish and Dutch, but I know next-to-nothing of those cultures. Many of my small town suburb friends are Italian, Irish, German, etc. and none of them practice any kind of cultural traditions. I have seen many discussions about peoples’ ancestry, what percentage of what nationality they are, and so forth – but if someone asks me “what are you,” I just answer American. Our country was once a melting pot, but I believe that pot has cooled and that most citizens are very disconnected from their roots.

As for the analysis of our two political parties, I would disagree that the Democrats are run by the “extreme left.” Extreme left tends to describe forms of socialism or anarchy – neither of which our Democrats would want to be associated with. What our parties do is basically the same when you consider foreign policy; it is domestic policies that they tend to turn into election points. While they are definitely important points, look at the controversy blooming around about abortion, immigration, and homosexual rights. Meanwhile, people are starving and being slaughtered in various parts of the world and American rights are being infringed upon.

__________________
No man is an island...
Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne

Thanks to globalism more than half of all American businesses belong to foreigners, either directly, or indirectly (shares), around 7% is owned by Saudis alone, then there are the Japanese, the Chinese, the Europeans.....etc.

__________________

Luap, we've gotten a bit away from the OT, but you've made several excellent points. It is important to note that I'm not completely idealistic in my desire to see government limited. I'm ok with social saftey nets, but on an extremely limited basis. I'm ok with government restriction of business, but on an extremely limited basis.

Back to the OT though, I think Americans are going to have to be responsible for stepping up to the plate to help earn back respect for our country. Am I correct in assuming that it is possible for countries to disagree with one another, but still have a mature and respectful dialogue? Because that might be a bad assumption. If people really feel that what America is doing is wrong and that our intent and philosophy is wrong, then they have an obligation to be outraged. It's just, as someone who agrees with our general intent and philosophy... well, I just hope that these issues can be dealt with.

__________________
Proud to be an American...
"Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation is almost always somebody screwed up." - House

Yeah, we’ve started to go into the realm of political and economic philosophy.

As you said before, we have to define what is good and what is bad to help fix international relations. Doing this across cultural and geographic divides is damn near impossible though, especially when you throw in statesmen and businessmen with no sense of ethics.

Honestly, the politically active members of America seem to me something of a minority, nevermind the politically aware members (of which I'm not sure if I'm a part of). Granted, I’m from a relatively small suburban town; however, there is so much apathy that, and I hate to sound elitist like this, I’m becoming pretty pessimistic about “rule by the people.” I believe it was the Romans that determined that all the people wanted were “bread and circus.”

I agree that it will be the responsibility of Americans to help earn back respect for our country; how exactly is up for debate. Do we reform our government, which is becoming increasingly fascist? (As defined by Mussolini: a merger of state and corporate power.) Do we create grass-roots public relations programs? Do we, as a nation, attempt to become more internationally aware? If 9/11 didn’t wake up most Americans, what will?

__________________
No man is an island...
Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne

It helps anyone who wants to leave more of their assets to their children.

Who are you to say that it belongs to someone else?


Actually most of the revenue of the federal govt comes from the collection of Income taxes. Most of those taxes are paid by higher income people.

Profits from corporations are taxed twice, once at the corporate level, and then again at the individual level when they pay dividends to shareholders.

It is what is known as double taxation. If a corporation owns stock in another corporation, the dividends can even be subject to an effect is known as triple taxation.


Actually the tax schedules were lowered for everybody. Where do you get your misinformation from?


Maybe that is the way it is in Europe. I don't know any Americans, including wealthy ones, who invests their wealth overseas. Why would they when the best returns are found in the USA, like real estate and stocks. I know a lot of foreign investors are still investing in the USA. Not as much now, but still...

Poor people have a minimal effect on the economy.

Lastly, the US economy is still the strongest and most valuable in the world, by a long shot. So that speaks for itself.

__________________
One day, I will sneak across the border into Canada and be an illegal alien. It will be fun.

I know more than enough!

__________________

It all comes down to this on election day: Are you a racist, or do you look down on spastics?

The tax allready now does only apply on large sums. 200.000 $ upwards or so. What I have read, thats not that often the case to be inherited. But that the affected people to a large part inherited much more than that minimal sum, so the tax has quite a dimension while really only hitting those who can afford it anyway.

Its just a tax break for the rich. Well, people could say openly so, still the conservatives who supported it preffered to call it otherwise.

Taxis on the profit of the company are evaded in great style. The proble is the larger the company the more this is true. Mulinationals often dont pay any taxes at all, except the one perhaps for low dividends. The legal form of a public limited company is choosen nearly exclusively by larger companies and has an astonishing density of those tax evaders. A taxation on the dividen can be reasnoble, even the more as it leads to keeping the money in the company and to be invested directly again. Its for sure better than an as large single taxation on profit for example.


From the news, not only European but also American, dont ask me which, it was too long ago that I could remember that exactly.
Are there statistics that show the distribution of benfitants of the tax break accoirding to income or similar?


Its one of economics that the higher the income the less money goes directly into consume again. I guess also American economists would not question that. Also its no secret that poorer people spend money more locally, allthough this coull certainly vary from country to country, there is a certain trend that is not contested either but to find in every book about economics.

The poor ones dont play a role in econmics? Give me a break. If I reduce the taxes for a poor one about one $ it will profitate the economy more than if I would reduce the taxes for a wealthy person about one $.
So the benefit is higher whe the tax break amounts to the same dimensions.

Good for you. But why do you need then tax breaks at all? You are not really such fans of Keynes are you?

__________________
When the Nazis came for the communists I remained silent, I was no communist.
When the Nazis came for the Unionists I remained silent, I was no Unionist.
When the Nazis came for the Social Democrats I remained silent, I was no Social Democrat.
When the Nazis came for the Jews I remained silent, I was no Jew.
When the Nazis came for me, there was no one left who could protest.

A propos anti-Americanism.

It's pictures like these that foster those sentiments:


A protester at the trial against some soldiers who are accused of having shot a defenceless civilist in Iraq and afterwards hiding that act with other conspirators.


I beleive this is only a very extreme opinion expressed in this pictue, is it? Does anyone here agrees with this woman?

__________________
When the Nazis came for the communists I remained silent, I was no communist.
When the Nazis came for the Unionists I remained silent, I was no Unionist.
When the Nazis came for the Social Democrats I remained silent, I was no Social Democrat.
When the Nazis came for the Jews I remained silent, I was no Jew.
When the Nazis came for me, there was no one left who could protest.

I certaintly do.