>
New Topic
>
Reply<
Esato Forum Index
>
General discussions >
Garbage threads
> bluetooth against bush
Bookmark topic
Hi Patrick - ta for the detailed reply!
I'm not entirely convinced about the cutting taxes thing - although I don't like paying tax (who does!!) I think it's necessary to have a certain level of taxation to ensure that public services are run OK, or that these tax cuts aren't either replaced by stealth taxes (like many think is happening in the UK), or simply cutting back expenditure on somthing like defence/armed forces (like what is happening here!)
Bush also seems to have a lot of backers in the oil industry - is this true? I wouldn't be at all surprised, as the US isn't all that willing to join up to the Kyoto agreement - as it would mean these oil companies having to spend money on cleaning up their emissions.
The comment on many people/countries being against Bush has come from reading posts from various people on this forum, and from what I've read/seen in the media too.
And, as @Liam says, could there be a link between these tax cuts and a huge defecit?
My wages have taken a drop whilst I train to be a nurse, and sadly my spending hasn't really - so I have a bit of a defecit in my personal accounts! Similar situation I guess, just a different economy of scale.
what's the media like over there? The impression I get (and I'm probably wrong!!) is that most of it is biased either one way or the other - left or right, but with there being no real 'impartial' TV or radio stations like the BBC (supposedly) is.
--
Posted: 2004-07-23 17:05:48
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2004-07-23 16:55:21, Patrick-in-CA wrote:
Quote:
On 2004-07-23 16:51:17, Liam wrote:
Does anyone here remember the story of a small nation called vietnam. Where some of its citizens tried to have a debate about contentious issues such as whether or not to be communists. Strange how when the government tried to oppress them another country joined in.
No prizes for guessing which!
Oooo Oooo ... I know....
FRANCE
LOL
You missed two and you have two guesses left!
[ This Message was edited by: Liam on 2004-07-23 16:09 ]
--
Posted: 2004-07-23 17:08:47
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2004-07-23 17:02:13, Liam wrote:
Surely it would be in a countries best interest to go round the world kidnapping people and then using them as slave labour, after all that way goods would be a lot cheaper. Maybe they should go round invading resurce rich areas. Or maybe they should continually ignore enviromental issues or agreements (Kyoto - anyone?). But if it were in a countries best interest to do these awful things and it could actually get away with it - UN or not - it would be done. It had happened like that for a very very long time. What prevents the US from doing that right now? I think a couple reasons ...
First: at the current state of military action, even after 9/11, the US is sharply divided and the people will ultimately put in an administration and elect a congress that will support its views. Fortunately the people of the US are a peace loving group - extremely slow to war as well as intollerant of extended periods of war.
Second: After taking such actions the nations of the world will most likely ban together to protect themselves from further atrocities - to the possible extent of declaring war on the US. No doubt trade and commerce would suffer and the US would have to completely isolate itself. I'm not sure any country can do this without dire consequences.
Further: By avoiding these types of atrocities a country would have better cooperative relations with others and could grow its culture, economy and influence in other, more effective ways.
Notice how I didn't include the will of the UN in any of the real reasons countries do what they do?
Nations participate in the UN to try to avoid misunderstandings and to work to find common ground - but it is by no means the sole reason countries act the way they act.Quote:We all now that this is not how countries should act in the world. There are instances where action should not be taken in your own best interests but as a review of the whole. That way attrocities could be avoided. Ideologically I agree that countries shouldn't act this way. See above as to why they actually don't. Just in case it wasn't clear - it has NOTHING to do with the will of the world community as expressed via the UN.Quote:I'm not trying to blame the US for everything, don't get me wrong i'm disgusted at the current state of affairs in the International Whaleing Convention (or whatever you call it). The main problem I have with the US is its lack of consistency. Where was the US in Rwanda or why arent they sending troops to the Darfur region of Sudan?
I believe if a country is going to interfer in the governance of others then it should do all the time or none of the time. Not just when it is in its own best interests.
I have stated before that the world is fraught with inconsistencies and double standards. In an ideal world we could and would do everything or nothing. But if, in the real world, we actually tried to live up to that impossible standard we would always be just sitting on our hands -- impotent -- unable to do anything about anything. We all use our resources the way we feel will most likely bring about the results we desire. Example: You may feel passionate about a variety of issues including G.W.Bush, the Environment, Global Warming, Recycling, Fossil Fuels, Slave Trade, AIDS, cutting the rain-forest, war in Iraq, etc ... However, by your own rules of "do all the time or none of the time" ... then you'd do nothing because you can't be writing letters to all the people about all the issues while attending all the rallies while being at all the places strapping yourself to some tree that is about to be cut down, protesting the war, voting, making phone calls, while still riding a bike made of recycled aluminum to work. Yet - not being able to do all these important things doesn't stop you from doing as many as you can! Or does it? I mean, you wouldn't want to be called a hypocrite, would you?
The United States may have a mighty military - but we cannot do everything that everyone wants all the time. Even when they are important. It is not possible. Period.
What we disagree on is the wisdom of the actions that are taken and what the priorities are. For this the United States uses a democratically elected congress and federally chosen executive branch to make the decisions, sort the priorities, and carry out the actions. To date, I find few other forms of public decision making that work better - even if it isn't perfect. However, if you'd like to make some suggestions - I'm open to discussion.
--
Posted: 2004-07-23 17:55:46
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2004-07-23 17:05:48, Sammy_boy wrote:
Hi Patrick - ta for the detailed reply!
You're extremely welcome! And thank you for your detailed reply ... which I will now chop up ...Quote:I'm not entirely convinced about the cutting taxes thing - although I don't like paying tax (who does!!) I think it's necessary to have a certain level of taxation to ensure that public services are run OK, or that these tax cuts aren't either replaced by stealth taxes (like many think is happening in the UK), or simply cutting back expenditure on somthing like defence/armed forces (like what is happening here!)Agreed. Any government of any consequence must have a source of revenue. It goes without saying. The only questions are:
How much does the government need to do its job effectively without strangling its citizens financially?
AND
What are the most reasonable/equitable ways to gather from the economy the required revenue?
This issue is a big one to me. I find it is the topic I most often disagree with liberals over. I favor a limited government with clearly defined responsibilities, leaving the individual to basically fend for themselves - sink or swim if you will. It is the essence of liberty in my view. The more the government is involved in the every day choices of the individual, the less liberty an individual has --- it's a core belief I have. Does this mean I'm an Anarchist? No. I recognize several legitimate functions of government and society. The rule of law is paramount. But like anything else - allowed to grow too powerful and far reaching - a government will eventually become tyrannical. The rights of the individual must be protected against the tyranny of absolute monarchy, oligarchy, -- and yes -- the majority.
In short - if the individual has control over their property/money - they have control.Quote:Bush also seems to have a lot of backers in the oil industry - is this true? I wouldn't be at all surprised, as the US isn't all that willing to join up to the Kyoto agreement - as it would mean these oil companies having to spend money on cleaning up their emissions.
Well - I think it can be reasonably assumed that the "Oil Industry" in general is happy with many of the Bush Administration policies and actions. However - it is an ASSUMPTION. But for the sake of argument I'll go with it. I believe we can agree that the US pulling out of the
Kyoto Protocol was a boon to US industry in general and the "Oil Industry" in particular. Maybe there is a way to work a treaty so that it isn't too burdensome on industry while the environment is protected? Environmental issues are not easy to pin down - but in a world of independent nation states countries will act in their best interest as they see it.Quote:The comment on many people/countries being against Bush has come from reading posts from various people on this forum, and from what I've read/seen in the media too.For the sake of argument I'll concede this one too. It appears that the world community doesn't like Bush. Yet, the reaction seems to be rage - not a dialog about what is wrong and how it can be addressed differently. If all I ever did was criticize all you do and vent vitriolic hatred to you and never suggest how our differences can be addressed ... eventually I think you'd just tune me out. It seems to me that Bush is too conservative and hawkish for the world's taste - but blind (punch your television) hatred isn't a very productive method of change in the world of US politics. Instead, I suggest telling me what you'd do instead of what is being done.Quote:And, as @Liam says, could there be a link between these tax cuts and a huge defecit?
My wages have taken a drop whilst I train to be a nurse, and sadly my spending hasn't really - so I have a bit of a defecit in my personal accounts! Similar situation I guess, just a different economy of scale.Sure ... but as I responded ... there are other ways to respond to a huge deficit than simply raise taxes. And in your personal situation ... the analogy of using increased taxes means you would go get a job or other source of income while not reducing your spending. Is that what you propose? I mean ... sounds good if you can get more money. But another perfectly reasonable way to deal with your budget would be to find ways to reduce your spending while you're training ... no?Quote:what's the media like over there? The impression I get (and I'm probably wrong!!) is that most of it is biased either one way or the other - left or right, but with there being no real 'impartial' TV or radio stations like the BBC (supposedly) is.I'm afraid I'd have to agree with your remote analysis of the situation. We have media outlets that are blatantly biased. So, it seems the best choice is to try to consume as many different perspectives on the same issue, assimilate the information using logic and critical thinking, then try to reach a reasoned conclusion. It's not easy. I can't speak for everyone but I suspect that the majority (including me) frequently hear what we want to. Is the BBC really unbiased?
_________________
Thanks for taking the time to read my post.
[ This Message was edited by: Patrick-in-CA on 2004-07-24 08:58 ]
--
Posted: 2004-07-23 18:38:17
Edit :
Quote
I think the level of taxation which a government can get away with is something that will be debated till the cows come home, some may say the bare minimum to ensure basic security and the infrastructure of the country is maintained, others will say enought to also include the health system, public transport, welfare states, etc etc.
I'm not sure whether to describe my self as left- or right-wing - although I have voted Conservative for the last couple of elections I've been old enough to vote - so I think I'm biased a bit to the right, and agree with you that the state should have mimimal intervention in people's lives, leaving them free to do as they please (within reason!). I also believe that things like health care should be provided free (as we have in the UK with the NHS - National Health Service), and that certain services (like the railways) should be also in public hands.
With regards to the environment, I believe we all (myself included!!) need to do more - we're all been unbelievably short-sighted about this, assuming that the next generation, or someone else will deal with it. A bit of effort, and expense in the case of big industry, I'm sure will reap long-term benefits with regards to quality of life on this planet in the future.
Good point on the budget thing. If I spend less money on mobile phones, gadgets, and general crap, I'd probably be fine! I'm that bad off at the moment, just a few quid on a credit card.
The BBC (and other broadcasters like ITV) are, certainly when compared to a lot of media out there, is unbiased. The BBC has been accused of a left-wing bias in the past, but they've denied that, and after spats with the currently ruling Labour Party, I doubt that's true now! You can listen to the BBC's World Service on a short-wave radio, or visit their website at
www.bbc.co.uk , it also has a 'world news' section, or try ITV at
www.itv.co.uk ,- see what you think and how it measures up to US companies!
Also - genuine question - how often have you left the US and visited other countries - either for business or a holiday, and have many people you know visited other countries? I'm interested, as I heard somewhere that only something like 10% of Americans have a passport (sorry - perhaps a little off topic!)
--
Posted: 2004-07-23 19:11:16
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2004-07-23 17:08:47, Liam wrote:
Quote:
On 2004-07-23 16:55:21, Patrick-in-CA wrote:
Quote:
On 2004-07-23 16:51:17, Liam wrote:
Does anyone here remember the story of a small nation called vietnam. Where some of its citizens tried to have a debate about contentious issues such as whether or not to be communists. Strange how when the government tried to oppress them another country joined in.
No prizes for guessing which!
Oooo Oooo ... I know....
FRANCE
LOL
You missed two and you have two guesses left!
[ This Message was edited by: Liam on 2004-07-23 16:09 ]
I missed two? Are you saying French Indochina wasn't first and primarily a French concern when Ho Chi Min first started to propose communism for Vietnam? Do you deny it was France that opposed Communism in Vietnam? Do you deny that France outlawed the Communist Party in France and its colonies (Vietnam/French Indochina being one of them) on September 26, 1939? Was it not the French that first went to war against communism in Vietnam?
Your implication is that the people of Vietnam were having a friendly discussion about what type of government they should have and that the US under John F. Kennedy came in and supported an oppressive government in its efforts to squash this dialog. Your over-simplification of the situation does nothing but distort the truth.
When Kennedy was finally forced to send in military advisers it was already 1961 - seven years after the defeat of the French in 1954. Vietnam was in a state of chaos. Containment of Communism - a policy supported by Europe - demanded that the US act. We may agree/disagree if the US response was adequate or even right - but hindsight is 20/20 - and I think Kennedy did what he thought was best for the US and the post-World War II world.
I'm personally getting a bit tired of hearing all the condemnation of the United States for past actions when hindsight is 20/20. Instead of bashing the United States - tell me what you would have done if you where JFK in 1961? Tell me why you would have done it. Be sure to take into account what you were being told by your advisers and the pressure you were receiving from a skittish Europe that was being threatened by Communism via the USSR.
Also, even though we are getting away from the topic of "Bluetooth Against Bush", if you want to claim that the actions of G.W. Bush regarding Iraq/Afghanistan are analogous to the actions taken by past US presidents concerning Vietnam - why don't you just make the links by stating what you think are the similarities instead of hovering around with vague accusatory statements and questions?
--
Posted: 2004-07-23 19:40:06
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2004-07-23 19:11:16, Sammy_boy wrote:
Also - genuine question - how often have you left the US and visited other countries - either for business or a holiday, and have many people you know visited other countries? I'm interested, as I heard somewhere that only something like 10% of Americans have a passport (sorry - perhaps a little off topic!)
Thank you for the links to UK news. I'll check them out.
I think your question is very important to the current global situation. I'm uncertain of the percentage of US citizens (I try to stay away from the word "Americans" as it also refers to residents of every country in both North and South America) who have a passport. My initial belief would be less than 10% and I think it is a shame.
I served in the US Navy for 6 years and was fortunate enough to have visited many countries on the Mediterranean. I've spent some time in Spain, Italy, Israel, Greece, and Puerto Rico (these are the ones I was able to spend more than a day "off duty" in). Spain was AWESOME! I've also spent two weeks in Sweden visiting a friend of mine who had studied in the US for a while. I also lived in the Philippines for 6 months with my Grandfather ... I was fourteen years old at the time. All my travels abroad were pre-9/11.
But to come back to the issue you bring up ... please correct me if I'm wrong with my assumption here:
In the Uni-polar global balance of power it is extremely unfortunate that the majority of the electorate that has the rather awesome responsibility to elect what many call "the leader of the free world" haven't had much experience with the free world at all.
If this is what you were hinting at - I couldn't agree with you more. I find it deplorable that US citizens don't get out and travel more. However, I'm not sure what to do about it. Any thoughts? And as a counter thought - how many "Europeans" as a percentage have traveled to the US?
_________________
Thanks for taking the time to read my post.
[ This Message was edited by: Patrick-in-CA on 2004-07-25 16:41 ]
--
Posted: 2004-07-23 20:12:18
Edit :
Quote
I couldn't tell you as a percentage who many Europeans have travelled to the US - but I'm fairly sure a lot of Brits have made it over there, even if they've only ventured as far as Disneyland in Florida.
You were right in your assumption as well btw, the point I was making was on how many Americans have ventured out of their own country. It was a while before I really started having foriegn holidays (cost was a major factor before), and it has altered my horizons (no pun intended!).
--
Posted: 2004-07-26 09:40:10
Edit :
Quote
It's true! Travel - or better - getting familiar with other's cultures and ways of life, makes one better equipped to make good choices. It makes me sad to know so very few US Citizens have actually traveled.
--
Posted: 2004-07-26 10:35:34
Edit :
Quote
Thats why you americans think that the world only revloves around you!...you ppl need to get out and see the world a lot more and learn to respect other cultures,religions and customs...There is whole new frontier past Disneyland and a Macdonald's way of life!
--
Posted: 2004-07-26 16:58:33
Edit :
Quote
New Topic
Reply
