Is the USA the greatest country in the world?
-
DaveH;198582 wrote:
I don't really care what color, race, religion etc anyone is that immigrates to the USA as long as they come here legally, and come here to be come Americans. Not African-Americans, not Mexican-Americans, not Norweigian-Americans, not Muslim-Americans, not Christian-Americans, but AMERICANS... Period.Lots of diversity, and the freedom to pursue your dreams is what has made this country great.
Agreed 100 percent!
-
DaveH;198582 wrote:
I don't really care what color, race, religion etc anyone is that immigrates to the USA as long as they come here legally, and come here to be come Americans. Not African-Americans, not Mexican-Americans, not Norweigian-Americans, not Muslim-Americans, not Christian-Americans, but AMERICANS... Period.Lots of diversity, and the freedom to pursue your dreams is what has made this country great.
Agreed also.....
-
Used is a POT HEAD!!!
-
DaveH;198582 wrote:
Lots of diversity, and the freedom to pursue your dreams is what has made this country great.100% agreed. just that is what makes anything great. but if you are going to make it a point to be apart of our country. do it the right way. coming here illegaly isnt diversity, its controversy. taking advantage of our governments money, that they spend to make an immigrant an actuall american citizen, isnt diversity. not dissagreeing with what you say but when anybody gets get a chance, take a walk through your nations capitol, whites, caucasians, REAL americans....they are the minorities.
-
I've never used any illegal drug in my life. Druggies tend to piss me off on the occasions that I've dealt with them.
I'm pro legaliaztion, though. What people do in their home or at a private party is their business, not mine.
I think we can progressively repeal the war on drugs, and pot is a logical starting point. The affects of pot on a person are certainly no worse than alcohol consumption, and the damage done from alcoholism to the individual and to society seem to be considerably more impactful.
Every rapist that is let out of jail earliy to make room for someone using or selling pot is a total perversion of justice.
-
bubba;198591 wrote:
The economy would be a lot better if some dems in the 30s wouldnt have started so many programs to let ppl freeload off the government...if ur poor get a job...and if ur too dumb to put away money for your retirement then that's ur own fault...our government shouldnt pay for people's mismanagement of money or pure laziness. I can see if u get laid off a little help till u can get to another job (which u should be immediately trying for)...but if someone just doesnt wanna work then fuck them, they should starve....This is where you have no clue about economics or government programs.....:icon_scratch: Deficit spending is not always bad for an economy but it can stimulate the economy. So the transfer payments used by the government can be a good thing. You cant think that everybody is a free loader. There are real disabled or povershed people that actually need this income. Also the federal programs that created jobs and helped us get out of the great depression was a good thing and they continued into the 50's with projects such as the new deal, interstate system, hoover dam, etc. It just does not have the impact on our economy these days because it is so much bigger. I do agree we should not support the freeloaders though and have a tougher system to beat.
-
bubba;198691 wrote:
Considering that wasnt the only thing that go us out of the depression...WWII had a great deal to do with it...war stimulated our economy, especially when we werent fighting and just selling our weapons to other countries...Yes the govermnet funded war was good too...but all that shit wasnt pointless like you said earlier. Transfer payments can be good...especially with the multiplier effect.
-
I think the lasting long term benefits of FDRs radical socialization of the US is open to debate. We now know that Social Security is a joke.
The Eisenhower interstate system amounted to massive subsidization of the personal car and long haul truck as the primary means of getting around our country. Our cities are now built on the assumption of 100% private vehicle ownership. Subsequently, people have 2 hr commutes, we have horrible smog problems, it is impossible to develop a cost-effective mass transit system (beacuse people don't realize the structural mass-subsidy of roads & private cars) and 60% of Americans are fat asses.
And yeah, Eisenhower figured out that the debt-backed expansion of government and the funneling of money to the war machine would create a virtuous business cycle... and specifically warned against it. And what we've subsequently seen is that every 15-20 years, we fight an unprovoked war off in some other place and there's massive opposition at home but a few people get really rich.
And the government's federal powers expand every time.
Many of the works projects and national parks created under FDR have fallen into disrepair. The govt can't afford to keep running them, and anti-property sociopaths would rather see them close or rot than be handed over to private control / ownership.
I think a case can be made that FDR was the worst president we ever had, in terms of setting the tone for the long decay of everything that made America worthwhile.
-
thrash;198707 wrote:
I think the lasting long term benefits of FDRs radical socialization of the US is open to debate. We now know that Social Security is a joke.The Eisenhower interstate system amounted to massive subsidization of the personal car and long haul truck as the primary means of getting around our country. Our cities are now built on the assumption of 100% private vehicle ownership. Subsequently, people have 2 hr commutes, we have horrible smog problems, it is impossible to develop a cost-effective mass transit system (beacuse people don't realize the structural mass-subsidy of roads & private cars) and 60% of Americans are fat asses.
And yeah, Eisenhower figured out that the debt-backed expansion of government and the funneling of money to the war machine would create a virtuous business cycle... and specifically warned against it. And what we've subsequently seen is that every 15-20 years, we fight an unprovoked war off in some other place and there's massive opposition at home but a few people get really rich.
And the government's federal powers expand every time.
Many of the works projects and national parks created under FDR have fallen into disrepair. The govt can't afford to keep running them, and anti-property sociopaths would rather see them close or rot than be handed over to private control / ownership.
I think a case can be made that FDR was the worst president we ever had, in terms of setting the tone for the long decay of everything that made America worthwhile.
So lets say they did none of the above and did not try to stimulate the economy during those periods? Would we have left the depression sooner or later? Yes the New Deal was not the greatest plan in the world and hindsight is 20/20. What would you have done Thrash? You seem to have the answer for everything....
-
I couldn't say what i'd have done.
My initial answer is "nothing", because my beleif is that the less the government does, the better off everyone is.
I don't claim to have an answer for everything. I'm not some brilliant politician or economist and as such I am not claiming to solve all your problems. What I do say is that a lot of government reaction has bad, unintended side effects, and is questionable at actually solving the problem(s) it was aimed at.
If there's anything to take away from a review of government action and the unintended consequences that followed, I'd say that a government that does as little as possible thereby does the minimal amount of damage.
Was "leaving" the depression as soon as possible even the right "goal"? Hasn't our economy been see-sawing ever since then? We now find ourselves with a fiat currency and an unaccountable federal reserve system?
Don't get me wrong -- I think people like FDR probably thought they were doing the best thing they could do at the time. That doesn't mean it turned out like roses and puppies after 70 years of an ugly world. We now find ourselves with 70 years of constant shifting towards a nanny state and hopefully a few of us are willing to reform or repeal that nannyism because we see what it has done in some other economies around the world, and what it is doing in our own society.
-
thrash;198719 wrote:
I couldn't say what i'd have done.My initial answer is "nothing", because my beleif is that the less the government does, the better off everyone is.
I don't claim to have an answer for everything. I'm not some brilliant politician or economist and as such I am not claiming to solve all your problems. What I do say is that a lot of government reaction has bad, unintended side effects, and is questionable at actually solving the problem(s) it was aimed at.
If there's anything to take away from a review of government action and the unintended consequences that followed, I'd say that a government that does as little as possible thereby does the minimal amount of damage.
Was "leaving" the depression as soon as possible even the right "goal"? Hasn't our economy been see-sawing ever since then? We now find ourselves with a fiat currency and an unaccountable federal reserve system?
Don't get me wrong -- I think people like FDR probably thought they were doing the best thing they could do at the time. That doesn't mean it turned out like roses and puppies after 70 years of an ugly world. We now find ourselves with 70 years of constant shifting towards a nanny state and hopefully a few of us are willing to reform or repeal that nannyism because we see what it has done in some other economies around the world, and what it is doing in our own society.
The economic point of view in the that time is that the economy will shift itself back into place without any interference from the government. They were basically going off the old theories that were developed in England in the 1800's. They new theories of economics were brought forth such as keynesian economics which they were reluctant to use. The main point was to stimulate the economy by investing into it. The ideas came from Britiain not the United States. After the ecnomoy kept falling further and further and with unemployment rates up to 25% somebody had to try and do something. The banks and stock market collapsed also....so without government intervention it would have taken double the time to get out of it. I am not a rocket scientist or claim to be smart, but common sense tells me the government had to do something to get out of this mess at that time. The government may be corrupt but they are going to do something during a crisis, just like a majority of the governments in the world would do... I think your a smart guy, but you think way to negatively in my eyes like everybody is out to get you. But that is the wonder of free speech....we can just agree to disagree.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login