You are willing to help provide the tools for people to succeed. That is good. All I am asking, and not rhetorically, is are you willing to allow segments of the population to fester because they make wrong decisions? As a society, I think we need to try to help those in bad situations, even of their own doing, out of those bad situations for the betterment of society as a whole. That doesn't necessarily means coddling lazy bums or even excessive federal programs. I'm really for less federal spending, particularly overseas spending, not more taxes. I do think a lot of manipulated loopholes that allow the wealthy to take advantage of the economic system need to be remedied. I don't believe the lowering standard of living for the regular middle class family is simply a matter of allowing the free market to operate unfettered. Except for bin Laden and Al-Qaeda? This really seems like finely crafted data to make the numbers sound better, but the top 50% of the country earn 88% of the income and pay 97% of the income taxes. That leaves 12% of the total income of the US for the bottom 50% of the nation. So half the country lives off of 1/10th of the income. That seems like a lot more glaring stat. Where do federal dollars go? Into the US economy unless they are spent abroad, which seems like the biggest issue to me. I'm all for a smaller government, I was backing Ron Paul in the presidential election, but I don't think we should ignore the flaws in the system that benefit those with the most resources. More than just the free market is driving the lower standard of living for the average working class family.
Well, if this article is your example of "the Dems in Congress along with the liberal media have done everything they can to undermine our attempts to use those unconventional means", then I don't really get it. It's not about democrats in Congress trying to undermine anything. It's the Washington Post reporting that "U.S. government and industry officials" revealed that warrantless domestic spying of US citizens was being conducted in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act This is simply news, not the "democrats undermining unconventional means". Outraged insiders leaked that the government was bypassing the FISA Act and gathering intelligence on US citizens. The FISA would have readily provided the administration with warrants and the legal authority to conduct any legitimate investigation. That's what is was there for and they almost never declined permission and even had the authority to issue warrants after the fact, so as to not impede any urgent surveilance. However the Bush administration decided to ignore the law and conduct the unconstitutional spying on its own citizens anyway -- without proper oversight and legal authority. Why would they do this? Perhaps if they had something to hide. Perhaps the Republicans also conducted some domestic political spying as they did under Nixon. We can't know because there are no authoritative records. There was no legal reason for Bush to attempt to bypass the law of the land. The FISA would have allowed him to go after terrorists here anyway. But he desired unfettered and secret access to private financial information of anybody he wanted to. Got another example of the Democrats undermining our anti-terrorism fight?
I don't think our society does that. Regardless, if you are waiting around for the government to straighten out your life, you will probably be waiting a long time. Of course, and this is the essence of a team concept. But some people just don't make the team no matter what you do for them, so do you lower the team standard to accommodate the lowest performer or expect higher performance? This concept can not be an absolutism. I agree with all of this.
I don't think our society does that either, though I think some republicans go so far as to want to remove all safety nets. Perhaps this is an issue where I differ with Ron Paul. You are right that the entire machine can't come grinding to a hault for one unwilling person, but we want as few people slipping through the cracks as possible. In some instances I can imagine some sort of tough love system would be in the best interest of the unwilling. Though that seems to be at conflict with the idea of freedom.
the richest dont get their $$$ from income. thats my problem with the stat. like i posted before (more than once i believe), Buffet's secretary pays a higher % of tax than he does. and he thinks its a travesty. i agree with this. the problem is the 100mil/yr person pays a lower % taxes.
i brought it up because it was in support of something you misunderstood. it was like some abbot and costello skit well, in a nutshell thats my point. republicans dont want society to get better, just their society to get better and to hell with everyone else. the best you can say is that they probably dont have too much of a problem with good things "trickling down" to the undesirables. as a % of a country's population that is made of immigrants, the US is #41. and if you take away the illegals it plummets. its a bit unfair to compare the US to Australia or New Zealand (both higher than the US , btw) because no one can just hop a fence because life really sux where they are from. i think you have an over inflated few of your country (relative to the rest of the world, of course)---as i imagine most americans do. driven by nostalgia, defensiveness and ignorance, id guess. there are many fine countries in the world. the old standby "proud to be an american where at least i know im free" is outdated. mostly, this is a testament to other countries than a knock on the US. since you mention it i guess i do feel guilty about my country. i think its said that others do not considering how many of its citizens live in poverty and all that comes with it. Really? I mean, Really? Did you read that before you wrote it??:lol: Are you willing to change the Constitution?[/QUOTE]absolutely. nothing is sacred except results the US at # 12. are you just going to argue that the US is better than the 11 above it, or honestly strive for it to become better. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index "The Human Development Index (HDI) is an index combining normalized measures of life expectancy, literacy, educational attainment, and GDP per capita for countries worldwide. It is claimed as a standard means of measuring human development — a concept that, according to the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), refers to the process of widening the options of persons, giving them greater opportunities for education, health care, income, employment, etc."
sure. but i didnt know the flag-wavers were applying conditions to america being the greatest---hands down, no questions asked. anyway, what are you saying? china is the greatest country in the world because they have the most people?
It just seems that with less citizens and with a smaller role in the world it is easier to take care of your people. I didn't see China on the list and I am not saying that China is the greatest country in the world; I don't think there is a linear correlation, but other factors probably should be considered.
