Page 30 of 35 FirstFirst ... 202829303132 ... LastLast
Results 436 to 450 of 595

Thread: How did USA become such a messed up country?

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Forum Fanatic Elldallan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,018
    Quote Originally Posted by JinXy View Post
    I agree that buying politicians is a problem. Always has been throughout the ages. What do you mean the bailouts were necessary because it would hurt people? There should not be bailouts at all. It has never worked.
    If a major bank goes bankrupt and is allowed to fail that means that a significant amount of the people with savings there will loose their money and because laws typically mandate that debts are paid out in order of the size of the debt, starting with the biggest means that it's the "little people" that gets screwed over, every single time. At least this is true for states that doesn't have some system where the state guarantees safety for $X.
    Besides, if a large bank is allowed to fail it will typically cause a lot of troubles for the other banks because they all have their "securities" invested with each others and if they can't get at those that might mean they risk failing as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rockie Cantais View Post
    How Communist of you and I'm not trying to insult you. In a way it makes a certain amount of sense. Here's the thing though you want to grow your society not cut it off at the knees. Yes, I'm a supporter of the Free Market and individual Freedom with everyone held accountable to a Moral Standard. Once you start limiting anyone or a organization you will stunt its growth. Who cares how much money they make? I don't and once they do make money hand over fist one should ask that company what have you done to give back to the society?
    How typically american of you, Socialism is not Communism. While I think his suggestion is a bit unbalanced and extreme it has absolutely nothing to do with communism(where the state owns everything). The problem is that in reality Free Market is just as flawed and unworkable as communism because it fundamentally favors monopolies or at least a market with very few(but large) actors, this gets increasingly obvious the higher the entrance cost for a market is. So you need a certain amount of regulation to prevent that from happening which means that it's not a free market anymore.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rockie Cantais View Post
    Politician I have one phrase ' TERM LIMITS ', You can't stop people being Human! We can limit their time in the unholy place called Washington DC, amen brother and sisters!! LOL, WINK.
    Term limits won't do **** as long as you have what is essentially a two party system, you need a system where whole parties can easily be switched out if they attract the ire of the voters.

    Quote Originally Posted by paul1229 View Post
    But when it comes to aiding the world or helping people, no one's heart nor wallet is bigger than the US.
    Blatantly false! Maybe you give the most in absolute numbers but that means nothing because it's just a result of being the biggest market. What matters is giving the biggest share of what you have and you certainly don't excel there. Nor do you rate very high in the reception of refugees relative to your size.

    And actually 4 bullies is better than 1 when it comes to global politics because MAD will unsure that they'd do anything to not fight each other, they'll jockey for position but they won't fight, just like the US and the Soviet Union never outright fought each others.

    And no the world wouldn't fail if the US economy failed, we'd sure notice it but it most certainly wouldn't be the end of the world.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimjack View Post
    One word reply to the original question: Obama
    So then Obama must have been the president for the last 50 years? And here I thought you had a term limit of maximum 2 terms and with a term generally being 4 years...
    Last edited by Elldallan; 08-12-2013 at 13:26.
    Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day, Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

  2. #2
    Regular
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    92
    Quote Originally Posted by Elldallan View Post
    If a major bank goes bankrupt and is allowed to fail that means that a significant amount of the people with savings there will loose their money and because laws typically mandate that debts are paid out in order of the size of the debt, starting with the biggest means that it's the "little people" that gets screwed over, every single time. At least this is true for states that doesn't have some system where the state guarantees safety for $X.
    Besides, if a large bank is allowed to fail it will typically cause a lot of troubles for the other banks because they all have their "securities" invested with each others and if they can't get at those that might mean they risk failing as well.
    That will teach people not to assume that just because a bank has been around the corner for 100 years that the bank is safe. It is precisely because of all these moral hazards (the bailouts, and government-guaranteed deposits) that people do not care what the banks do with their money. The banks do not care. They just gamble and compete based on getting higher yields instead of safety of their customers' deposits. The depositors don't care, because the govt's got their back (a careless assumption). People today do more research about the cell phones they want to buy than the bank that they want to put their deposits in.

    You are supposed to let bankrupt companies fail. And then the prudent banks who survive will come in and buy up the assets and depositors. And the entire system starts off from a more solid base. Why do you steal money from the rest of the population just to save the banks who're foolish? Do you know that prior to the 2008 crisis, there were more than 7000 banks in the US? The prudent banks are supposed to be gaining market shares in times like this!

  3. #3
    Forum Fanatic Elldallan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,018
    Quote Originally Posted by JinXy View Post
    That will teach people not to assume that just because a bank has been around the corner for 100 years that the bank is safe. It is precisely because of all these moral hazards (the bailouts, and government-guaranteed deposits) that people do not care what the banks do with their money. The banks do not care. They just gamble and compete based on getting higher yields instead of safety of their customers' deposits. The depositors don't care, because the govt's got their back (a careless assumption). People today do more research about the cell phones they want to buy than the bank that they want to put their deposits in.

    You are supposed to let bankrupt companies fail. And then the prudent banks who survive will come in and buy up the assets and depositors. And the entire system starts off from a more solid base. Why do you steal money from the rest of the population just to save the banks who're foolish? Do you know that prior to the 2008 crisis, there were more than 7000 banks in the US? The prudent banks are supposed to be gaining market shares in times like this!
    Did you know that at least in the US and other places banks has a legal right(and sometimes an obligation) to lie in order to maintain stability.
    Sure what you're saying would work if everybody had access to all pertinent information and it was 100% accurate but they don't, so the consumer can't do enough proper research to make the proper informed choice, plus banking is a market with very high entrance thresholds which ensures that it's mostly the same old big players that jockey for position so it's all basically all the same.

    And when the bankruptcy laws makes sure that the biggest debtholders gets paid first what your system doesn't work because the biggest debtholders gets paid regardless and thus has no incitement to actually do said research, they'll just go with whoever gives the highest interest rates. Hence the system is skewed to maintain itself just the way it is and the "little guy" gets screwed over regardless of what they do, hence securities and bailouts are necessary to protect the "little guy" who just so happens to be the voters and a bailout is infinitely preferable to a revolt.

    Maybe if you changed bankruptcy laws so that the biggest amounts of debts are settled rather than the biggest debts first there would be a change but that would bring all sorts of other problems such as generally slowing down the economy which is bad for pretty much everybody in one way or another.
    Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day, Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

  4. #4
    Post Fiend Rockie Cantais's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    265
    Quote Originally Posted by Elldallan View Post
    How typically american of you, Socialism is not Communism. While I think his suggestion is a bit unbalanced and extreme it has absolutely nothing to do with communism(where the state owns everything). The problem is that in reality Free Market is just as flawed and unworkable as communism because it fundamentally favors monopolies or at least a market with very few(but large) actors, this gets increasingly obvious the higher the entrance cost for a market is. So you need a certain amount of regulation to prevent that from happening which means that it's not a free market anymore.
    From a True American point of view I see not much difference between Socialism and Communism just different shades of evil! Free Markets will work when you add a High Moral fabric to your society. Gaining wealth is not the issue but the lack of morals that humanity allows to happen once wealth has occurred. Free Market does NOT imply no regulations and how European of you to think so! I also say Regulations on the Government to prevent their monopolizing the human society.


    Quote Originally Posted by Elldallan View Post
    Term limits won't do **** as long as you have what is essentially a two party system, you need a system where whole parties can easily be switched out if they attract the ire of the voters.
    How would you know? The idea is to have a no party system with term limits, No official ones anyway. One step at a time pls. The true argument against this is Experience! The House was never intended to be experienced and the Senate was, why they have longer terms. I just don't think it was intended to be a career! Evil, I smell it. The goal was maybe one or two terms at the max. The States are to pick the Senators not elected, Progressive plot like many others in America. What you do in your country is up to you, unless you go off the deep end.


    Quote Originally Posted by Elldallan View Post
    So then Obama must have been the president for the last 50 years? And here I thought you had a term limit of maximum 2 terms and with a term generally being 4 years...
    You don't understand. Its not Obama you are giving the man way too much credit. Its the Progressive movement and it has been 100 years of this crap! Its like placing a frog in a pot of water. Slowly boil it and the frog will not jump out and heck at some point the frog will go nice warm water. Wink, American peeps is the frog and the progressive movement is the boiling water. Ouch it burns now!
    Last edited by Rockie Cantais; 08-12-2013 at 20:15. Reason: grammer ;)
    Before you can see the truth, you must be willing to accept it.

  5. #5
    Forum Fanatic Elldallan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,018
    Quote Originally Posted by Rockie Cantais View Post
    From a True American point of view I see not much difference between Socialism and Communism just different shades of evil! Free Markets will work when you add a High Moral fabric to your society. Gaining wealth is not the issue but the lack of morals that humanity allows to happen once wealth has occurred. Free Market does NOT imply no regulations and how European of you to think so! I also say Regulations on the Government to prevent their monopolizing the human society.
    What you call a High Moral fabric is nothing that will ever happen by itself. As it is corporations are actually legally bound to do just the opposite, they're legally bound to maximize profits for their shareholders.
    Personally however I think that Socialism is very much what you talked about, the community as a whole through free and fair elections have decided that those who have more ought to give more and imposes that by taxes.
    Personally I don't have a problem with people earning money, I however do have a huge problem with a system that lets politicians be bought completely legally and I also have a problem with a system where those with money can essentially also buy the justice system(because in reality the one who can pay for the most expensive lawyers will win). Take those problems out of the system and implement a system for fair elections(because the absurd electoral system is anything but fair)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rockie Cantais View Post
    How would you know? The idea is to have a no party system with term limits, No official ones anyway. One step at a time pls. The true argument against this is Experience! The House was never intended to be experienced and the Senate was, why they have longer terms. I just don't think it was intended to be a career! Evil, I smell it. The goal was maybe one or two terms at the max. The States are to pick the Senators not elected, Progressive plot like many others in America. What you do in your country is up to you, unless you go off the deep end.
    The idea might be to not have a party system but in reality the idea that that would work is as absurd as claiming that 1+1=5632. It simply doesn't work, especially not in a system that practices a "first across the line" system where you either win or you loose because it favors a system with few parties that is extremely inflexible. Humans naturally migrate into groups and in a system where it is practically impossible to form new parties and get their representatives elected into any position of relative influence the system is inherently biased towards a system with a few very large parties and once that's the reality it doesn't matter whether there are term limits or not because the party will generally force the individuals to toe the party line, and thus the individuals becomes perpetually replaceable faceless button pushers, sure the individuals might have a little leeway in having their own opinion but it is expected to only differ from the party line in minor nuances.
    Hence you get a system that is essentially locked in stasis because you can't vote the parties out of power, they're too large for that to happen and whoever you vote for will just take their place in the faceless party structure. Therefore I think the system practiced in most of europe is a lot more fair and easily influenced because the parties are typically smaller and it's easy to form a new party and gather support because you just need to gather enough votes to gain seats in parliament whereas in the US and UK you essentially have to gather a majority of the votes in enough election districts to gain power which is a much harder thing to do.

    Yeah what we do in our own countries are up to us but expect people to have opinions when what your country does affects every other country in one way or another.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rockie Cantais View Post
    You don't understand. Its not Obama you are giving the man way too much credit. Its the Progressive movement and it has been 100 years of this crap! Its like placing a frog in a pot of water. Slowly boil it and the frog will not jump out and heck at some point the frog will go nice warm water. Wink, American peeps is the frog and the progressive movement is the boiling water. Ouch it burns now!
    I think you should aim that at the poster I quoted, I was just being sarcastic which I thought would be obvious but I guess Poe's law rears it's ugly head again :P Yes attributing something so far reaching to a single man is obviously absurd.
    Personally though I think Obama is moving things in the right direction as opposed to GWB which I and most of Europe thinks was a warmongering nutcase.
    Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day, Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

  6. #6
    Forum Fanatic Elldallan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,018
    Uhm American Badass why the $10B as such an absolute number?
    And no it'd be better if it went to the state instead of spread on the employees because what you're suggesting is fundamentally discriminating because some types of business are inherently high on manpower while others can run with practically no manpower.
    But why use $10B as an absolute figure, a progressively increasing percentage would be better.

    But considering how global the world is today this would be practically impossible anyway because they'd just move the money around until they got it into some tax paradise with Swiss style banking privacy.

    But as I said in my previous post, as long as big business is allowed to legally bribe politicians this will never happen so the political system needs to be drastically overhauled before anything else can happen, and it ain't gonna do that by itself.
    Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day, Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

  7. #7
    Forum Fanatic
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,894
    Quote Originally Posted by Elldallan View Post
    Uhm American Badass why the $10B as such an absolute number?
    And no it'd be better if it went to the state instead of spread on the employees because what you're suggesting is fundamentally discriminating because some types of business are inherently high on manpower while others can run with practically no manpower.
    But why use $10B as an absolute figure, a progressively increasing percentage would be better.

    But considering how global the world is today this would be practically impossible anyway because they'd just move the money around until they got it into some tax paradise with Swiss style banking privacy.

    But as I said in my previous post, as long as big business is allowed to legally bribe politicians this will never happen so the political system needs to be drastically overhauled before anything else can happen, and it ain't gonna do that by itself.
    I support this idea. A % cap and handed to the state for benefits etc. Sorted.

  8. #8
    Regular
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    92
    Quote Originally Posted by American Badass View Post
    I support this idea. A % cap and handed to the state for benefits etc. Sorted.
    the problem is not whether companies distribute enough to the employees. Doing this will add another layer of costs to the companies, and they already have too many regulations slapped on them. This is why they are running to countries with less regulations and government interventions. Regulations are why lots of small businesses are finding it hard to compete. Small businesses are already constrained, now you want to constrain big businesses?

    Having companies keep their money is not a problem. The money is savings. Savings create more investments. An economy grows through savings and investments.

  9. #9
    Forum Fanatic Elldallan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,018
    Quote Originally Posted by JinXy View Post
    the problem is not whether companies distribute enough to the employees. Doing this will add another layer of costs to the companies, and they already have too many regulations slapped on them. This is why they are running to countries with less regulations and government interventions. Regulations are why lots of small businesses are finding it hard to compete. Small businesses are already constrained, now you want to constrain big businesses?

    Having companies keep their money is not a problem. The money is savings. Savings create more investments. An economy grows through savings and investments.
    I sort of agree with this, as long as the wealth stays with a company and they keep reinvesting it it isn't a problem, it drives the economy. The problem arises when they sit on the cash or make huge payouts to stock owners(especially when these payouts ends up with a select few individuals), or when they buy off policitians.

    Quote Originally Posted by American Badass View Post
    I support this idea. A % cap and handed to the state for benefits etc. Sorted.
    I wasn't talking about a cap, not a hard one at least, what I meant was that if you earn $10 the tax is 0%, if you earn $50k it's more, if you earn $10B it's 98%. And yes the curve is exaggerated, I'm not trying to come up with exact numbers, merely give a rough understanding of what I mean.
    The general idea is that the more you make the more tax you pay as a percentage of that income, but you also get to keep more in terms of absolute money because 2% of $10B is still more then 100% of $10. So there is still an incitement to make more money because even if the state taketh more of it away you still end up richer in terms of disposable money.
    Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day, Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

  10. #10
    Regular
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    92
    Quote Originally Posted by Elldallan View Post
    I sort of agree with this, as long as the wealth stays with a company and they keep reinvesting it it isn't a problem, it drives the economy. The problem arises when they sit on the cash or make huge payouts to stock owners(especially when these payouts ends up with a select few individuals), or when they buy off policitians.
    Yes, but the cash that is hoarded by companies or paid out to stock owners don't end up under the mattresses. They go into the banking system, and from there new loans are made. It might not be the company reinvesting the money themselves. But someone else will borrow the money from the banks and do it.

    Now we hear that banks aren't lending much to businesses now. That's true, because they are lending tons of money to the government (by buying treasuries) and because the Fed is printing money to pay these banks interest so that the banks will keep the money with the Fed.

  11. #11
    Forum Fanatic Elldallan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,018
    Quote Originally Posted by JinXy View Post
    Yes, but the cash that is hoarded by companies or paid out to stock owners don't end up under the mattresses. They go into the banking system, and from there new loans are made. It might not be the company reinvesting the money themselves. But someone else will borrow the money from the banks and do it.

    Now we hear that banks aren't lending much to businesses now. That's true, because they are lending tons of money to the government (by buying treasuries) and because the Fed is printing money to pay these banks interest so that the banks will keep the money with the Fed.
    Well the problem I see is as per that video is that wealth is too heavily distributed with the top 10%, hell even the top 1%, if the wealth was a bit more evenly distributed it would still get spent but there would be less poverty and a definite improvement of living quality for pretty much everybody. Plus the money doesn't disappear just because it's taxed, it's just moved to the government which can invest it somewhere as well.

    A problem is that once money reaches the Cayman Islands or wherever it essentially becomes invisible and the persons or corporations can swindle them off to do whatever.
    So in my opinion the movement of money towards these places should be hampered and double taxation legislation should be lightened so that if country X has 5% tax and country Y has 50%(yes this figure is intentionally exaggerated) tax then even even if a corporation moves it cash from country Y to country X country Y can still take the differing 45% in tax, this would obviously be a problem for tax paradises as it'd destroy their "business model". At the moment where such double taxation laws exists it simply prevents double taxation and the tax where you register it is what goes.

    But most blatantly we need to prevent corporations and the top 1% from buying politicians, regardless whether they do it legally or illegally.
    Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day, Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    33
    So dumb, let me break it down for you guys who are bashing the US.
    If you were born into a ----
    1.Rich family in the US, you will have things taken care for u and u basically will do well unless you are addicted to CRACK. Your life is great. DONE.
    2. Middle class family, you will need to work a bit to be successful. Maybe catholic or private school, driving a camry/honda, local college then u get a job. Or maybe your parents have a business and u can take over. Life not too bad, little effort for success. Again, don't get hooked into CRACK and your life, with a little effort, is good. DONE.
    3. Poor family, things will be slightly harder. When u come into this world, chances are your broke ass mom is on welfare and u have insurance which will cover your hospital bills, similac, cheese, bread and things that will be plentiful to sustain a baby also, even CASH for your broke ass mom to spend. All she needs to do is not buy CRACK, then you will be a healthy baby eating government issued milk, cheese, bread, etc etc. Now, when your broke ass is old enough to go to school, guess what, it's FREE too. Even the breakfast and lunch is FREE. Your broke ass mom just have to prove that shes broke and its FREE. Some schools, its free anyway, so no work needed. Now, all u have to do is study, do good in school and believe it or not, a broke ass kid like yourself CAN get into college for FREE!!! DONE!
    *** WARNING *** You will fail in the US if you do the following(s) !!
    a. CRACK
    b. LAZY
    c. CRACK
    d. LAZY
    e. CRACK
    f. LAZY

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    33
    As for the International level. The US can do whatever the f*ck they want. Why? Cause they have the biggest gunz on the street and theyre the only one that actually shot someone, aka Bombing Japan. If some ****ty country wanna start trouble, US gonna punch him in the gut and make him sit the f*ck down. Why? So the bigger kids, aka, china, russia will think twice about starting trouble. Sure, US is in everyone's business and it seem like theyre a bully, blah blah, but guess what, when a typhoon or some catastrophic event occur, guess who's first to aid, who's first to send in troops, etc etc, oh yeah the US. We police the world and we are needed. If the big boys with the big gunz don't play sheriff, the world will be chaotic. It's better to have a bully who runs the classroom, rather than 4 kids fighting to see to gets to be that bully. When it all comes down to it, every country wanna be the US and all hating. There;s always a bully, US is in charge, ofc other countries don't like it. But if those smaller countries have a chance, no doubt they would wanna be the bully themselves. The US is no angel, theres scheming and corruption as well, just like any type of government. But when it comes to aiding the world or helping people, no one's heart nor wallet is bigger than the US. "Americans are pigs, arrogant blah blah" You would be too if u belong in a nation thats the strongest in the WORLD. The US controls the WORLD. "The economy in the US is bad, blah blah" Trust me, if my country fails or falter for some reason, your country would have/will be crumbling 100 times worst. If France or Britain fails, the world will be affected dearly. If the US economy fails, the WORLD fails.
    US = World = Boss = Sheriff = Big Daddy= MVP
    Sure that sounds obnoxious, but i bet u if my country's defense, economy were to fail tomorrow, your country would of collapsed last month.
    Last edited by paul1229; 08-12-2013 at 08:58.

  14. #14
    Regular
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    92
    Quote Originally Posted by paul1229 View Post
    As for the International level. The US can do whatever the f*ck they want. Why? Cause they have the biggest gunz on the street and theyre the only one that actually shot someone, aka Bombing Japan. If some ****ty country wanna start trouble, US gonna punch him in the gut and make him sit the f*ck down. Why? So the bigger kids, aka, china, russia will think twice about starting trouble. Sure, US is in everyone's business and it seem like theyre a bully, blah blah, but guess what, when a typhoon or some catastrophic event occur, guess who's first to aid, who's first to send in troops, etc etc, oh yeah the US. We police the world and we are needed. If the big boys with the big gunz don't play sheriff, the world will be chaotic. It's better to have a bully who runs the classroom, rather than 4 kids fighting to see to gets to be that bully. When it all comes down to it, every country wanna be the US and all hating. There;s always a bully, US is in charge, ofc other countries don't like it. But if those smaller countries have a chance, no doubt they would wanna be the bully themselves. The US is no angel, theres scheming and corruption as well, just like any type of government. But when it comes to aiding the world or helping people, no one's heart nor wallet is bigger than the US. "Americans are pigs, arrogant blah blah" You would be too if u belong in a nation thats the strongest in the WORLD. The US controls the WORLD. "The economy in the US is bad, blah blah" Trust me, if my country fails or falter for some reason, your country would have/will be crumbling 100 times worst. If France or Britain fails, the world will be affected dearly. If the US economy fails, the WORLD fails.
    US = World = Boss = Sheriff = Big Daddy= MVP
    Sure that sounds obnoxious, but i bet u if my country's defense, economy were to fail tomorrow, your country would of collapsed last month.
    unfortunately, those are just your assumptions.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    16
    One word reply to the original question: Obama

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •