Conquer Club

Well Jenos why are we anti-american for wanting to change the things that are wrong in all countries?(especially america)

I have lived in America for 15 years,
I would gladly follow George Washington and Thomas Jefferson to overthrow the current government.
Ignoring all the well known complaints against america such as its bloody history(etc..)
The United States(gov) is responsible for all sorts of foreign terrorist activities,
It constantly interferes with other countries soveriegnity,
It is a drain on the world economy(your wealth comes from the sweat of the developing areas)
Our military is completely offensive minded(failing in its mission to defend)
the government has made the united states completely dependent on the rest of the world,
Its the governments job to protect our borders instead it focuses on controling what happens within its borders,
They've ignored the seperation of church and state,
The system is completely designed towards the upper class(getting away with murder)
the Education system is a joke, we have no healthcare(universal)
and our overpaid politicians dont do anything positive for the nation(only for themselves)
They allow only the elite to run for office(wealthy)
Passing unconstitutional laws

While allowing the country to fall into another depression, leaving its people in ignorance. All to defend "freedom and democrasy" meaning the profits of worldwide capitalism while they destroy the enviroment preventing further advancement to the planet society.

When is enough,ENOUGH?

More or less, I agree. We do need to increase Education budgets, equal to our defence spending. Slash the politican's and buerocrat's pay to a basic food-housing-medical credit and no more. If they don't need it(wealthy family), then they have to cover the basics out of their wallet. More people should be able to go to college, that is what public works and tax incentives for environmental business policies and small-businesses are for. As for the poor abroad, we can either outlaw outsourcing (and take away the only means they have to feed themselves) or incourage more industrial growth. Take your pick.

To a point, I'd agree that universal healthcare might be nice. Think about it, americans are always trying to look beautiful and be fit. Why not make it a national policy? The only sore spots, where come the funds and how do we keep it from becoming overly fascist or even communistic?

Well I would love it if the wealthy pitched in, but you would be suprised how much money you would save if we raised taxes. Personally I wouldnt mind abolishing currency alltogether(but that would require a complete overhaul of world society)

Im leaning towards illegalising outsourcing, it contributes to their poverty about as much as it helps them(argueable)

Iz Man wrote:So Brits can't think and govern for themselves? Just another American "puppet"?

Do you have any kind of appreciation of how politics works in the real world? ANY whatsoever?

We've been inextricably tied to America since WWII. I don't think I really need to explain the whole thing, cold war, Thatcher and Reagan, special relationship etc. etc. etc. at this point do I?

Our foreign policies are intertwined, the responsibility for which lies with both sides, rightly or wrongly, but what that DOES mean is that British lies are lost due to American foreign policy decisions. We've made the decision to stand by America, but that doesn't mean we should stand by and ignore drastically brutal and, to be frank, illegal foreign policy without saying a word does it! That, I'm afraid, gives us a right to at least moan a bit.

Jenos Ridan wrote:To a point, I'd agree that universal healthcare might be nice. Think about it, americans are always trying to look beautiful and be fit. Why not make it a national policy? The only sore spots, where come the funds and how do we keep it from becoming overly fascist or even communistic?

Most of Europe has been managing it for years! Its not that hard! However much we complain about the NHS, it is certainly a great great deal better than private healthcare. If you break your leg you get treatment, not bills.

Guiscard wrote:

Iz Man wrote:So Brits can't think and govern for themselves? Just another American "puppet"?

Do you have any kind of appreciation of how politics works in the real world? ANY whatsoever?

We've been inextricably tied to America since WWII. I don't think I really need to explain the whole thing, cold war, Thatcher and Reagan, special relationship etc. etc. etc. at this point do I?

Our foreign policies are intertwined, the responsibility for which lies with both sides, rightly or wrongly, but what that DOES mean is that British lies are lost due to American foreign policy decisions. We've made the decision to stand by America, but that doesn't mean we should stand by and ignore drastically brutal and, to be frank, illegal foreign policy without saying a word does it! That, I'm afraid, gives us a right to at least moan a bit.

The fact of the matter is that there was no treaty obligation in this context or any binding obligation at all that made Britain "stand by" the U.S. So, in that sense the decision Britain made is it's responsibility alone and it is as much guilty of bad foreign policy as anyone else.

To ignore your own conscience and stand on the tradition of American and British 'special relationships' is a pretty lame excuse for your leaders to have made and for British citizens to use in trying to accept less of the blame.

British bad judgment is what has gotten British soldiers killed. Just like U.S. bad judgment has gotten American soldiers killed.

Jenos Ridan wrote:More or less, I agree. We do need to increase Education budgets, equal to our defence spending. Slash the politican's and buerocrat's pay to a basic food-housing-medical credit and no more. If they don't need it(wealthy family), then they have to cover the basics out of their wallet. More people should be able to go to college, that is what public works and tax incentives for environmental business policies and small-businesses are for. As for the poor abroad, we can either outlaw outsourcing (and take away the only means they have to feed themselves) or incourage more industrial growth. Take your pick.

To a point, I'd agree that universal healthcare might be nice. Think about it, americans are always trying to look beautiful and be fit. Why not make it a national policy? The only sore spots, where come the funds and how do we keep it from becoming overly fascist or even communistic?

there simply isnt enough tea in china so to speak, to make our education budget equal out to what we spend on our military. If the rest of the developed world basically equals our military budget put together, it might be a clue that we could scale back just a tad. Yes we have a greater liability in many instances as a result of being a world leader, but that argument certainly can only go so far.

And as guis said, though universal healthcare is not by any means perfect, it has worked effectively in many parts of europe for quite some time now. It also would benefit our failing auto industries, since foreign competition doesnt have to pay nearly as much in legacy costs. I would assume this goes for other industry as well.

got tonkaed wrote:

Jenos Ridan wrote:More or less, I agree. We do need to increase Education budgets, equal to our defence spending. Slash the politican's and buerocrat's pay to a basic food-housing-medical credit and no more. If they don't need it(wealthy family), then they have to cover the basics out of their wallet. More people should be able to go to college, that is what public works and tax incentives for environmental business policies and small-businesses are for. As for the poor abroad, we can either outlaw outsourcing (and take away the only means they have to feed themselves) or incourage more industrial growth. Take your pick.

To a point, I'd agree that universal healthcare might be nice. Think about it, americans are always trying to look beautiful and be fit. Why not make it a national policy? The only sore spots, where come the funds and how do we keep it from becoming overly fascist or even communistic?

there simply isnt enough tea in china so to speak, to make our education budget equal out to what we spend on our military. If the rest of the developed world basically equals our military budget put together, it might be a clue that we could scale back just a tad. Yes we have a greater liability in many instances as a result of being a world leader, but that argument certainly can only go so far.

And as guis said, though universal healthcare is not by any means perfect, it has worked effectively in many parts of europe for quite some time now. It also would benefit our failing auto industries, since foreign competition doesnt have to pay nearly as much in legacy costs. I would assume this goes for other industry as well.

Well, we could always tax the rich more and give more tax breaks to the poor and small businesses (not the owners, just what they own). Also, it would help if we got rid of the legacy of the New Deal. Most of it wasn't meant to be perminent. I like the idea of the FDIC and large public works, but the other stuff is a drain.

Machus wrote:

Guiscard wrote:

Iz Man wrote:So Brits can't think and govern for themselves? Just another American "puppet"?

Do you have any kind of appreciation of how politics works in the real world? ANY whatsoever?

We've been inextricably tied to America since WWII. I don't think I really need to explain the whole thing, cold war, Thatcher and Reagan, special relationship etc. etc. etc. at this point do I?

Our foreign policies are intertwined, the responsibility for which lies with both sides, rightly or wrongly, but what that DOES mean is that British lies are lost due to American foreign policy decisions. We've made the decision to stand by America, but that doesn't mean we should stand by and ignore drastically brutal and, to be frank, illegal foreign policy without saying a word does it! That, I'm afraid, gives us a right to at least moan a bit.

The fact of the matter is that there was no treaty obligation in this context or any binding obligation at all that made Britain "stand by" the U.S. So, in that sense the decision Britain made is it's responsibility alone and it is as much guilty of bad foreign policy as anyone else.

To ignore your own conscience and stand on the tradition of American and British 'special relationships' is a pretty lame excuse for your leaders to have made and for British citizens to use in trying to accept less of the blame.

British bad judgment is what has gotten British soldiers killed. Just like U.S. bad judgment has gotten American soldiers killed.

Guis got it right first time, you have no appreciation whatsoever for how politics works in the real world.

there simply isnt enough tea in china so to speak, to make our education budget equal out to what we spend on our military. If the rest of the developed world basically equals our military budget put together, it might be a clue that we could scale back just a tad. Yes we have a greater liability in many instances as a result of being a world leader, but that argument certainly can only go so far.

Well, your military budget is currently $500bn (4% ofyour budget, which means a total budget of $10,000bn). The NHS costs £100bn per year, which is $200bn per year. Times by 5, thats $1,000bn per year for universal health care. Your tax is 26.2 % currently, so a rise to 28.8% (which will still keep ot lower then all of western Europe) would cover the expense of universal health care. This would leave most people will more money at the end of the day, as overall health care costs per capita iss cheaper with universal healthcare then private healthcare, by quite a lot.

Guiscard wrote:

Iz Man wrote:So Brits can't think and govern for themselves? Just another American "puppet"?

Do you have any kind of appreciation of how politics works in the real world? ANY whatsoever?

We've been inextricably tied to America since WWII. I don't think I really need to explain the whole thing, cold war, Thatcher and Reagan, special relationship etc. etc. etc. at this point do I?

Our foreign policies are intertwined, the responsibility for which lies with both sides, rightly or wrongly, but what that DOES mean is that British lies are lost due to American foreign policy decisions. We've made the decision to stand by America, but that doesn't mean we should stand by and ignore drastically brutal and, to be frank, illegal foreign policy without saying a word does it! That, I'm afraid, gives us a right to at least moan a bit.

Couldn't agree more with Guiscard here. America has alot of enemies nowadays and unfortuantly us Brits standing by you is giving us "bad rep". Quite frankly, you should put your own country's existance down to pure chance.
Remember, America was once part of the great British Empire.

Anarchist wrote:Well I would love it if the wealthy pitched in, but you would be suprised how much money you would save if we raised taxes.

If the wealthy pitched in? As if they don't?
Please enlighten us in how much would be saved by raising taxes and giving more to the government.

Once again, lets point out exactly who pays taxes in the U.S.:

The top 1% of wage earners pay 36.89% of the taxes collected.
The top 5% - 57.13%
The top 10% - 68.19%
The top 25% - 84.86%
The top 50% - 96.70%

Let me finish the math for you.
That means the bottom 50% of wage earners in the U.S. only pay 3.3% of all taxes collected.

Those "evil" rich people are the ones subsidizing the country's payroll.
They're the ones creating jobs, providing services, and keeping the economy moving.
So lets take even more money away from them so they have less to put back into the economy?
We should punish these people for being successful?
Perhaps you'd rather the government handle all the money? After all, they're so effective with what they get as it is....

keep waving your flag Iz man,

when the economy collapses well continue this conversation.

and before the inevitable rebuttal that capitalism is a ship that will right itself
"im looking at the world outside and it still looks like its sinking to me"

Iz Man wrote:

Anarchist wrote:Well I would love it if the wealthy pitched in, but you would be suprised how much money you would save if we raised taxes.

If the wealthy pitched in? As if they don't?
Please enlighten us in how much would be saved by raising taxes and giving more to the government.

Once again, lets point out exactly who pays taxes in the U.S.:

The top 1% of wage earners pay 36.89% of the taxes collected.
The top 5% - 57.13%
The top 10% - 68.19%
The top 25% - 84.86%
The top 50% - 96.70%

Let me finish the math for you.
That means the bottom 50% of wage earners in the U.S. only pay 3.3% of all taxes collected.

Those "evil" rich people are the ones subsidizing the country's payroll.
They're the ones creating jobs, providing services, and keeping the economy moving.
So lets take even more money away from them so they have less to put back into the economy?
We should punish these people for being successful?
Perhaps you'd rather the government handle all the money? After all, they're so effective with what they get as it is....

not to turn this into a capitalism thread....but considering the proportion of wealth that the top percent has, should we really be all that surprised that they have to pay as much as they do in taxes?

Anarchist wrote:keep waving your flag Iz man,

when the economy collapses well continue this conversation.

and before the inevitable rebuttal that capitalism is a ship that will right itself
"im looking at the world outside and it still looks like its sinking to me"

Anarchist's location gives the impression that he's a Thunderbird. Do you like being the puppet?

Minister Masket wrote:

Anarchist wrote:keep waving your flag Iz man,

when the economy collapses well continue this conversation.

and before the inevitable rebuttal that capitalism is a ship that will right itself
"im looking at the world outside and it still looks like its sinking to me"

Anarchist's location gives the impression that he's a Thunderbird. Do you like being the puppet?

LMAO!!! been a long time since ive seen that show!
Love their machines!

Anarchist wrote:

Minister Masket wrote:

Anarchist wrote:keep waving your flag Iz man,

when the economy collapses well continue this conversation.

and before the inevitable rebuttal that capitalism is a ship that will right itself
"im looking at the world outside and it still looks like its sinking to me"

Anarchist's location gives the impression that he's a Thunderbird. Do you like being the puppet?

LMAO!!! been a long time since ive seen that show!
Love their machines!

Well congraulations, you are now a Tracy. You get Thunderbird 6, which self-destructs whenever you touch it. Enjoy!

Minister Masket wrote:

Guiscard wrote:

Iz Man wrote:So Brits can't think and govern for themselves? Just another American "puppet"?

Do you have any kind of appreciation of how politics works in the real world? ANY whatsoever?

We've been inextricably tied to America since WWII. I don't think I really need to explain the whole thing, cold war, Thatcher and Reagan, special relationship etc. etc. etc. at this point do I?

Our foreign policies are intertwined, the responsibility for which lies with both sides, rightly or wrongly, but what that DOES mean is that British lies are lost due to American foreign policy decisions. We've made the decision to stand by America, but that doesn't mean we should stand by and ignore drastically brutal and, to be frank, illegal foreign policy without saying a word does it! That, I'm afraid, gives us a right to at least moan a bit.

Couldn't agree more with Guiscard here. America has alot of enemies nowadays and unfortuantly us Brits standing by you is giving us "bad rep". Quite frankly, you should put your own country's existance down to pure chance.
Remember, America was once part of the great British Empire.

The chance to be free of the British would make anyone fight with a ferocious will, no pure chance needed.

But, I will be the good colonial and defer to your superior knowledge of all the world and the motivations of everybody in it.

Anarchist wrote:keep waving your flag Iz man,
when the economy collapses well continue this conversation.
and before the inevitable rebuttal that capitalism is a ship that will right itself
"im looking at the world outside and it still looks like its sinking to me"

I didn't think you would have any rebuttal to the facts.
There is no sign of the economy "collapsing" whatsoever. As a matter of fact, it is doing very well.
I also find it amusing that as a supposed anarchist, you advocate giving more money to the government. Just a tad hypocritical, don't you think?
hmmmmm.....

Iz Man wrote:

Anarchist wrote:keep waving your flag Iz man,
when the economy collapses well continue this conversation.
and before the inevitable rebuttal that capitalism is a ship that will right itself
"im looking at the world outside and it still looks like its sinking to me"

I didn't think you would have any rebuttal to the facts.
There is no sign of the economy "collapsing" whatsoever. As a matter of fact, it is doing very well.
I also find it amusing that as a supposed anarchist, you advocate giving more money to the government. Just a tad hypocritical, don't you think?
hmmmmm.....

You my friend, belong in a spelling bee. GWAHEY

got tonkaed wrote: not to turn this into a capitalism thread....but considering the proportion of wealth that the top percent has, should we really be all that surprised that they have to pay as much as they do in taxes?

It's not surprising given the progressive tax system that we have.
My point is in rebuttal of the standard "class envy" tactics employed by most leftists. That being:
"The rich need to pay more in taxes"
"Tax cuts only benefit the rich"
etc.

The answer to economic problems is not to throw more money at it by taking it from the wealthy.
Education is a prime example. More and more money gets dumped into education with little if any results as compared to the dollars being spent on it. The answer lies in holding those that are teaching, and those that are taught, to higher standards; and make sure that these standards are met.
Lowering taxes allows more money in the pockets of consumers. What then do they do with this money? They spend it and they invest it. This is good for the economy, not bad.
Don't you want more money in your paycheck?

I really don't hate to butt in, but....

Anarchist wrote:and before the inevitable rebuttal that capitalism is a ship that will right itself
"im looking at the world outside and it still looks like its sinking to me"

...if you think that we have real capitalism in the United Empire of America, then you are sadly mistaken.

Government regulations don't exist in a truly capitalistic society. Neither does a military-industrial complex.

A truly capitalistic society has no place for government-subsidized education, social security, or health-care. The market provides each of these, at a lower cost and higher output.

You call yourself an anarchist...would that be a anarcho-communist, out of curiosity?

Iz Man wrote:

got tonkaed wrote: not to turn this into a capitalism thread....but considering the proportion of wealth that the top percent has, should we really be all that surprised that they have to pay as much as they do in taxes?

It's not surprising given the progressive tax system that we have.
My point is in rebuttal of the standard "class envy" tactics employed by most leftists. That being:
"The rich need to pay more in taxes"
"Tax cuts only benefit the rich"
etc.

The answer to economic problems is not to throw more money at it by taking it from the wealthy.
Education is a prime example. More and more money gets dumped into education with little if any results as compared to the dollars being spent on it. The answer lies in holding those that are teaching, and those that are taught, to higher standards; and make sure that these standards are met.
Lowering taxes allows more money in the pockets of consumers. What then do they do with this money? They spend it and they invest it. This is good for the economy, not bad.
Don't you want more money in your paycheck?

on a practical level i certainly agree with you. I bitch as much as the next guy when i see the pittance that is left to me after the gov gets what they have coming to them. Then i realize wait...i dont have that much money if the gov didnt take anything out anyway....so goes crappy summer jobs.

But actually for funs sake, ill venture that from a critcial view of capitalism i greatly disagree with you. well maybe not greatly but i do nonetheless.

Essentially one of the errors that Marx may have made, in his analysis on capitalism, is he did not understand the mitigating influence on class struggle that the state could have. Its hard to fault him for this, since states were still kinda a new and forming concept, or at least they werent very strong, but nevertheless, Marx doesnt really account for the fact that the state can help ease some of the burden on the lower classes.

How will they do this without the taxes...Essentially marx would argue you probably arent going to get a revolution if the basic necesities and infrastructure needs arent priced out of the hands of the lower classes, which has proven to be a legitamate fear in states that are struggling against some of the globalization policies of the IMF/World bank (think the food and water riots which have rifled through latin america). Marx forsaw this possibly, but did not forsee the idea that if states continued to tax, the burden would fall less on the capitalist class (at least up until now, when it theorectically may begin to revert anyway) and thus we have less of a need to throw off those tricky chains.

Also a bit on wage theory. Marx, as i paraphrase him here, implied that the principle advantage that the capitalist had over the wage worker was the simple fact that the capitalist reinvested the profit in labor power from the worker into his business, whereas the worker was required to spend his wage in order to sustain himself and therefore was required to continue returning to work. In time and i suppose under the right light this is the basis of the wage slave type of mentality. Truth be told, i do wonder on some level, whether or not more taxes, (and lets face im poor, so why not take them from the rich eh?) isnt a terrible thing in order to prevent the burden from falling on the capitalist class, in which case i do not see long term good in store for the general population.

And in a completely semi unrelated note, we need fairly high taxes for that universal health care system that was due about a decade ago...

GeneralUnderhill wrote:I really don't hate to butt in, but....

Anarchist wrote:and before the inevitable rebuttal that capitalism is a ship that will right itself
"im looking at the world outside and it still looks like its sinking to me"

...if you think that we have real capitalism in the United Empire of America, then you are sadly mistaken.

Government regulations don't exist in a truly capitalistic society. Neither does a military-industrial complex.

A truly capitalistic society has no place for government-subsidized education, social security, or health-care. The market provides each of these, at a lower cost and higher output.

You call yourself an anarchist...would that be a anarcho-communist, out of curiosity?

I agree with GT, however Marx recognised the fact that government in itself is a corruptable entity, it would be foolish to rely on the state.(As the world shows)

General, im fully aware that we do not have a free market. Im argueing with Iz who likes to pretend that we do. A free market would be much better then the controled markets we have now, however due to my experience I tend to be skeptical and my biase has led me in a Socialist direction. Socialism seems to have a better foundation.(renewable resources instead of currency-equality-everything according to ability,everything according to need-free education and healthcare,etc..)

My anarchist views have evolved into a spiritual understanding, see Anarchy topic page 5

Um...this is socialism.

Not as bad as, say, Russia, but we've still got it.



I don't see what you mean by 'renewable resources.' Do you mean a return to the barter system? Could you define the term, please?

I don't see what you mean by 'equality,' either. Socialism is inherently unequal, in that those with power will use it to further their own gains. See the Soviet Empire for details.

'[E]verything according to ability,everything according to need' With socialism, everything goes where the central planners say it goes. I understand the sentiment, but I think the mantra is better served by pure capitalism.

Free education and healthcare are not all they're cracked up to be. The education tends to be crappy (see American government schools for an example there), or the healthcare swallows everything else to be the best (see Cuba). Besides, they're not free. Your property tax pays for the schools (whether you have kids there or not, you pay for it), and healthcare comes from any other Federal tax you have (though off-budget, forcing a logistical nightmare).


As for your views on organized religion, I have this to say: they really can't coerce you. If they do, you leave. It's that easy. As far as they can't coerce, and as far as they unite (or create) a community, and as far as they inspire people to do great things, I have nothing bad to say against it.

Hmm....do you believe in a man's right to property?

And again this thread takes another step towards the subject of Communism.
Red Scare anyone?