What do you think the US government is really supposed to do? In my opinion, the government exists ONLY to defend the country's citizens, to strengthen our borders and work to strengthen the core of the country, and we pay it to do so through taxes and such. I don't feel the government has any business getting involved in overseas affairs. Look at how many died in Vietnam? And for no reason because the communists won anyway. Look at how many have died in Iraq so far? And the way things are going, it doesn't look like peace will come to the Middle East anytime soon. What are your views on this?
The U.S. has been trying to guide the world in the course it wants it to go, to better our interests and the future of our goverment. That can be a good thing, and a bad thing if it backfires. It of course, can be a bad thing for someone on the other side. Its all very strategical.
Yes it is very strategical, which is the very reason why it becomes a very complex subject which often results in the destruction of property, loss of life etc which is the bad side of the strategy The government sees the good side of the strategy as simply an 'end game' that is continually persued in the chase for more dollars to flow into the USA!! Example in Lebanon recently Destruction Billions of USD Weapons,rockets, tanks etc order from Israel to USA 20 Billion USD USA aid to Lebanon 500 Million USD USA shows a paper profit 19.5 Billion USD which flows into the US economy Sure it is no where near as simple as that, but this comes into the 'mix' somewhere
I think that it should exist at most to protect the liberties of its citizens. I believe that the income tax is unconstitutional and immoral.
If the government doesn't get involved in overseas affairs, those affairs may not be overseas much longer.
Defending the country is best done when its not done here. I'd much rather have the US defend the country on other people's terrority than having all wars fought inside the borders. Agree? The case could easily be made that because of US involvement in Vietnam, communism could not spread throughout indonesia, philippines, etc. Vietnam really marked the end of communist expansion. The final gasp was Afghanistan, where it failed again. Like there's been peace there ever? I think the goal, more or less, is to make sure they only kill themselves and not export it over here. That's why we fight over there.
No, there's never been peace there..it's been going on since Bible times (sorry to bring religion into it, but there's an explanation). But why should we lose what is it now, at least 2,000 troops now? I know we just can't pull out now and leave, but I don't think we should have even gotten involved in the first place... Are things really better than when Saddam was in power, though? I read somewhere that there have been over 40,000 Iraqi civilian deaths since outside forces intervened.
Indirect taxation. Roughly 20% of our taxes are indirect. Excise, tariffs, sales, and so forth. I don't like the income either, I'd prefer we go back to pre-16th amendment forms of taxation...but that would take a miracle in our culture. There'd be no central bank, and the currency would be a lot more solid. Inflation in new york (which had the freest banking system in the world) was so little that you could have only one year of current inflation to equate 50 years of inflation under a relatively free-banking sytem. Really data demonstrates how unstable our system is. Although I'd have exceptions in declared wars, and huge emergency...but congress would have to declare such.
Yeah, but how poor was the nation before this? From what I can recall we were having to borrow tons of money from outside countries.
Very limited government. Mostly for police/judicial, and the military defense. One for the state, and the other for the federal level. The state would deal with most issues that are specific to the state, while the federal would have jurisdiction over that which effects more than one state. No federal welfare...yes to state, if they vote it in. No federal SS or medicare...yes to state, if they vote it in. Federalism...Senators are chosen based on state constitution(s), not the purality voting system...yuck. The 17th amendment has made our country so partisan, and lack almost any accountability. No federal income tax....states debatable. Generally we should avoid wars, but we should have a highly engaged foreign policy, were we fixate standards with others that are imperative. We constantly view economic, social, or coercive threats with due attention. We don't become ideologues within foreign policy,...we remain as practical (and generally principled) as possible. I'd prefer a very firm immigration policy, whom permits in as many educate individuals we need...with a rather limited view on massive poor immigration. To counter poverty in nations around us, we should be as engaged with everyone south of us as we are with our own country. No one does this. The big social issues should be a state thing...as most of them don't apply to our constitution. No federal unfunded mandate.... No central banking system.... ---------------------------------------------------------------- I'm living in a different dimension, I know. My country would lean more on states to chose their general direction (within reason); but it would uphold a mentality that we are a unit, and that we have same general goals as country.
Wartime debt were the problem, and that is the reason why I give those occasions some latitude. Poverty existed in America for a long-time,...income taxes had no huge effect on helping this. I'd almost say no effect.... The biggest changes in poverty were in the 50's to mid sixty....then afterwards it stalled a bit. Steadily it's been going downwards in each race. I'd say social acceptance/coercion by the federal government...in terms of intergrading (the black community), probably had more of an effect on poverty than anything. Although around the 50's, almost everyone dropped in poverty. We had extremely low taxes (around 5%), and our economy was bustling with opportunities, because it was the only big economy left after the war to have infrastructure. It's really hard to compare the begining of the industrial revolution to current times, without taking a slow trip down memory lane. Lots of things have changed, and there's so many factors to compare when saying what effect poverty and what didn't.
i think its good for a government to take interest in what is happening in another country, however i think it is wrong for a government to do so because its leader has a personal interest or financial interest and it trying to force a form of govnerment on a country without knowing the wishes of the people in that country
they were in 20 yrs but when usa entered Iraq they killed half of that no. in 4yrs "new olympic score"
US has a bad leader... but I still praying to God to change his heart... Not every US bad.. only the leader is baaaad...
"Damned of you do, damned if you don't" If we don't go bail other countries out the world will cry and demand to know why the US didn't help. If we do go in and deal with the shit of other countries the world cries foul and demands an answer as to why we went in. Sucks being the superpower sometimes.