Are we witnessing the collapse of America?

You do not. You've read some theories and placed a verdict on it.

 

You don't even know me. I was a Liberal through college, I even voted for Obama the first time. But, then I realized he was sponsored by the same war mongers as Bush.

And btw, I didn't 'draw assumptions' on anything, my class pushed a very socialist agenda. When I was young I thought I believed in all that, then later on, I realized that freedom and personal responsibility would create a freer society, that only punished people who were going to cause harm. Not punishing people for using drugs, or drinking raw milk or, disallowing junk food like appearantly Fraggle wants to do.

Politicians are no more moral than us. They pass these laws cause it expands their empire and makes them money. It's not meant to help the people, it's meant to create dependency for all the people they're giving money to. Some of those people are owed that money, but others are living off of it, and creating a need for the fake money system to perpetuate.


I mean, what is your opinion on the federal reserve?

What's your opinion on the on the debt?

We can't just keep this broken system going, we are wasting money, that would go alot further in the hands of people, than in the hands of government, who blows it in Las Vegas, or by giving it to Jihadist Radicals in Syria. The whole system is broken, and throwing more money at it wont fix the problem.

As I said, we need to reel government in. Look at where we are already. They re watching us masturbate on webcams. I mean, we need to get over our dependency and realize the government is part of the elite that's screwing us, and they worked their way into every aspect of our lives by making us think there's a huge "need" for them. When, the money would benefit the economy much better in the hands of the people, rather than the hand of government. The economy and jobs are created by supply and demand, and the free market.

Leftist claim my free market ideas create "feudalism," but to me, government controlling every corporation, and redistributing everyones money, is much closer to feudalism.. I think we should be free to spend our money how we please, and not be forced into government monopolies without the ability to opt out. I don't buy the lie that that is "freedom." I think freedom is the ability to buy a drink once in awhile, or a Hamburger. And, I definitely don't think it's the governments job to regulate what we ingest providing that it's not harmful, and people understand the effects.

People know sugar gets them fat, just because SOME people use sugar as a comfort food, isn't a reason to take that freedom from everyone.


Total government control to me, no matter what brand it is (IE Facism, communism, socialism etc.) to me, we need less government control, and more freedom, and we would be okay.

Just because fraggle rock thinks freedom means people will be hunting and killing people, doesn't mean it's true. He has drawn extreme assumptions on my views, when my views allow people to live how they please, and does not tell them what they can and cant do (excluding anything that causes harm on another.)

As I said, we can agree to disagree- that's fine. I don't want another argument or anything. I just don't trust the government, like a good amount of this country. We may be a minority now, but our numbers are going up.

 

I don't pretend to. I base it on your posts (well, now I only read the first sentences, if those already are bogus I think I can save myself some time just like fraggle rock)


How can you say you know everything about socialism and not take in account some of the most succesful countries? Because you didn't know they were socialist, that's why.

 

It doesn't matter if they're socialist or not, and, if you don't even read what I post, why are you talking to me?

You leftist ignore it because your ignorant and biased. you think you represent peace and happiness for everyone, but you represent equal to or greater than the force of republicans.

It's not freedom when you're forced to buy in, and government has more power than the citizens. We have a Rule of Law in America, just because Obama pretends it doesn't exist, doesn't mean it doesn't. We have Constitutional Human Rights, that are alrready being violated, and wanting to tax more, and make more government will do nothing but make the transfer of wealth to the top 1% go faster.

You can roll in your disbelief all you want, but well see when Obamacare is instituted, and medical prices start skyrocketing, and, you can't speak with a real person. Government spends way too much of our money, rarely makes money or even breaks even and, they make prices go up, quality of care goes down, and less people are able to buy in/pay their way. Government creates expensive monopolies, and, forces everyone to buy in.

You can disagree all you want, but, I'm telling the truth about the US government. They embezzle at least billions probably trillions of dollars through our treasury, and by paying their corporate buddies to take on long expensive projects that never get done.

In other words, the government is unreliable, takes control of the market, makes prices go up majorly, and blows our hard-earned money.

I would never believe the answer is to throw more money at them, and I believe Liberals only think that cause they've been conditioned to believe the governments working better than it was 6 years ago. Which, is a lie, because we have a massive amount of more debt, still alot of unemployment and, the dollar is still based on nothing but even more debt.

I don't believe it will stand, but idk if you have the attention span to look for the truth anyway, if you can't even listen to opposing views


Do you support Obama? I know you did in 2012...

 

Just sharing my thoughts. I did read what you post, that's what made me conclude as well I'd better quit that. As you noticed I'm not the only one. It's ok to take some advice and criticisim. It just seems you mainly focus on the US (where you already get lost in the liberal stereotype) and their enemies. This does not make you an expert on socialism.

 

Unfettered government power is not good no matter what you call it. And, if Im totally wrong about it, why can't you show me how? I think communes can work on a local level, and people should be able to join them or start them, but I don't believe it would work for 313 million people, especially not under a government such as ours, that keeps laws in place, for the money they reap while punishing non-violent people.

I do believe we need a system that works for the people, but I don't see the answer being in expanding government. We've been doing that in America for 100 years, and this is the nightmare we got from it.

I think the answer is in shrinking government, not forcing it on everyone. And again, if I'm wrong, show me how. Don't stoop to fraggles level and insult me.

I'm not insulting people for disagreeing, I am only questioning certain views. I've been getting discredited, insulted and, told I'm wrong, but none of you can explain why.

 

ScandInavia. Seriously, do some research.

 

I listen to you, I just don't agree.

Some of what you say I don't address, but I do try to make an honest effort to sort through the mess of 'liberals, Obama, the end of America' to identify and address the few valid points that you do make.

And I give up because you don't seem to understand what I'm saying. I mean, it would be one thing if you got it and disagreed... that could even be interesting, but you just flat out don't get it. And then you change the topic.

Example:

Earlier in this thread, you posted a graph that showed that small businesses weren't hiring as many people, and said that this was proof that taxes were hurting business (even though taxes were dropped when Obama took office as part of his solution to the 2008 crisis, and then slowly raised back to pre-crisis levels in 2011/12).

I explained to you that they weren't hiring people, but their profits were up. I gave you a list of reasons why, including that technologies had replaced workers.

You then seemed to not care about the jobs not being created, and said that it was a good thing that businesses were making profits. Suddenly, we weren't talking about giving people jobs anymore, it was all about businesses making money. Fuck those stupid job-seekers, they deserve to be poor!

So again, you posted a graph proving my point completely, denied and then admitted that low taxes are aggravating the gap between rich and poor, and that businesses aren't going to hire more people/are going to simply keep the extra money... and then finally, you decided that you had made a point about how low taxes help everyone... because somehow all of those much richer businesspeople are going to make up for all of those people who can't get jobs. Oh, and then another tirade about Liberals.

You did post a study about how lower income tax is good for business and I can't say I disagree with that, but you can't blame Obama for that because the income taxes you were talking about are on a state level. Furthermore, GDP growth isn't a reflection of overall living conditions. Just because a state has money, it doesn't mean that EVERYONE is enjoying that wealth. You could also create an island nation where Bill Gates lives like a king and everyone else survives on scraps from his dumpster and say that it was a wealthy country... that wouldn't mean it's a nice place to live.

So yes, Texas did have a high rate of GDP growth-- but at the same time its child poverty rate skyrocketed to one of the worst in the country. It also has the highest number of people without health insurance, and according to the US census, it has a poverty rate of 17.2 percent, which is also one of the highest in the country.

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2013/09/17/texas-has-highest-uninsured-rate-high-poverty/

Again, tax cuts are good for the well-off (which might include some people from the dwindling middle class as well), and bad for the not-so-well-off. This is what I and a lot of other people on this board have been trying to tell you. Are you going to blame Obama/liberals/taxes on the rich for all of the problems in Republican/conservative/low-tax states somehow? Tell me again how Obama has all of this direct influence over red states and small municipalities in the middle of nowhere.

I really don't think 'liberals' are crying for the government to tax the poor, Stp... they DO want to tax the rich, and Obama has brought this up, but I'm not very hopeful that this will happen.

You're also not exactly prospering if you're living one major illness/accident away from being bankrupted by medical costs... so I would say that the true poverty rate is probably much higher than the stats would reveal.

Hahaha... I don't accept Obama for what he says, but I try to accept the situation for what it is.

I don't think you're a Bush Republican-- you're worse than a Bush Republican.

And I guess that yes, I probably am keeping the system running because I buy things... but so do you.

Were you shooting over my head when you were telling me I support murder, admitting that you don't understand socialism/mixed economies, or when you thought that Scandinavia was a country?

I should have stopped.... oh god why didn't I stop...

 

If he read them, I really don't think he understood them.

 

unfettered economic power, is exactly the same as that of governments.

and THAT is, what is destroying america and the entire planet.

 

I make alot of valid points. And btw, with the way that you don't respond to any of Obama's Constitutional violations, makes me think that you're not concerned with Americans freedoms. On the other hand, I am. It is my biggest concern seeing as to how I've come to know a government which harasses teenagers/black people, murders and injures peaceful people at home and abroad and, makes regime changes at the drop of a hat by instilling fear into the people. As I said, there's no reason to trust them. Obama has lied so much, it isn't even funny. So, why do you trust him?
That's why my point about Obama is totally valid. My beliefs revolve around Civil Liberties, something you have not displayed any concern for. Obviously we don't agree, so what's the point in arguing?

I feel the same way about you with regards to my beliefs.

First of all, we we're talking about new businesses starting up, not about people getting jobs, so i don't know where you got that idea.

Secondly,you're putting words in my mouth. This is exactly why I have a distaste for Liberals, you debate like you're fight "like" each others post and, argue by discrediting people with false information. Of course I care about people getting jobs. But, I also believe it would be easier to do that if more people kept their money, cause more people would save it or, start up small businesses with it, and it will stimulate the economy.

It wasn't "proving your point" I showed a graph on the last thread we were talking on, showing the less new jobs are opening, you disregarded that one. And don't make me dig for it, because I remember posting it on a recent thread.

Social Security, and other Federal government programs, which make up a good portion of this tax, are federal.

I didn't blame Obama on things that happen in red states, you're putting more words into my mouth.

I blamed him for extending the Bush tax cuts, Unconstitutional laws and, working for the same bankers as Bush. The Rich are getting richer, because they are connected and getting jobs from the government.

Frankly, you Liberals refuse to believe that absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Sugar coat it however you want. The bottom line is Liberals want government to take over all social aspects of our lives. They want government to run the "free" daycares, "free" health insurance and, "free" retirement funds.

I feel like you liberals are oblivious to the fact that Social Security, and other government programs, are MUCH more expensive than in the free markets.


You are lying about my views, straight up. And, I'm starting to believe you are knowingly doing it. Big government working with big business, does not represent my views in the least-- if anything, they represent yours, because you're willing to "tolerate" it. But, I don't support government benefits and bailouts, and, I don't support a huge government which "takes care" of us, and "watches over us" from cradle to grave!

The reason why is because these forms of government, always end up taking too much money and power, and in America's corporate state, our government goes to war to feed the Military-industrial complex.


So again, I think the difference between you and I is, I don't feed into the government propaganda. You think they magically going to stop helping corporations, and, start caring about people. I don't see that happening in the US. I simply think a better answer to total government control, is control at a local level, and all federal drug laws and corrupt programs eliminated. Of course I'm a "radical" and an "extremist" to Liberals like you, because you philosophy is based on the fallacy that government is more qaulified than individuals to do anything they want.

Like I said, none of you seem to be defending Civil Liberties. So, what does that say about Liberalism, to people who think the government has gone too far since 2001?

It probably is. But, this isn't caused by capitalism, it's caused by a few elitest at the top controlling policy in their favor. You may not believe it, cause it sounds to much like one of your dreaded "conspiracies," but, at this point it is a fact. Bankers like David Rockefeller has said there is a group which influences world policy. Obama is often involved in those of-the-radar meetings about world policy, as well as the Queen, and other such elitists.


Really, it makes me sad when people think the system is fine, or, it's getting better. Because, that totally denies the fact that our money is based on debt, and our military interests around the world. The dollar is a bubble and it will collapse. Everytime a depression happens, the government just prints more money to "stimulate the economy," and we're only delaying the blow, the system will collapse. Moreover, over dollar is based on our military, so how would Liberals/socialist address that?

I think you're treating people like statistics.

Imo, you're not doing that either. You my be in country ran by the Queen, but, I am not. A president does not have the power to violate our Constitutional Rights. Even when it's allegedly to protect us.

Oh yeah, I'm worse than a Bush Republican that supports torcher and force on peaceful individuals. I guess that makes sense coming from someone who supports a Democrat doing the same thing

It's funny how 3 Liberals jumped on the bandwagon and like this post, it really makes me feel as though I proved my point that Liberals are ignorant, don't defend Civil Liberties and, support force when done by a Democrat.

I'll get more into your leftist policies later, but for now, I'll just say Cui Bono?

It is Latin for "who benefits?" Who benefits from this police state of total government control? It is not the people, although you are stuck in the Liberal ideology (which makes up 90% of the media)

So, to all 4 off you- you are not being individuals, or "Different," you are not defending freedom by forcing more government down everyone's throats. Governments are force. That is what they do. They kill, steal, lie and, cheat the system, and yet, Leftist want us to put all our hope on them.

Yeeeeeaaaaaaahhhhh.... Good luck with that one. I support non-aggressive peaceful policies that best achieve Liberty- you support forcing everyone to buy into stupid government programs they may or may not need.

No, we're not keeping the system running by buying things, we are keeping the system running by electing politicians that shred our Rule of Law, and put themselves above Human Rights.

You can Label me all this shit that you do, but in the end I'm the one advocating peace and non-aggression, you guys are pushing government control, which inevitably leads to government force.

I mean, you were talking about fatty food, is it really your wish that the government forcibly disallow people from eating certain foods?

I mean, I don't think raw milk or Marijuana should be illegal- I def don't want the governments dirty hands on my coffee and, graham crackers just because they think it'll make me fat!!

I'm shooting over your head when I said you accept government force. All you Liberals envision this world where everyone is happy and helped, and really what ends up happening is, you pay MOST of your money to government and get very, very little back in return.

And, I think it's a little absured how you Leftist are acting cause I hadnt heard of

But, I took the Liberty to look it up, because I know Socialism does not work to the benefit of FREE individuals, and I found what I was looking for, on a few sites.

Here's what one had to say...

"

Hmmm... That's extremely interesting. So, they're using free market policies (that you've been dissing on) to make the money and, a 60% tax rate, so the Government can get it from the people.

These systems of perpetual endless welfare don't work, and they end up being just as forceful as America has been in the past 100 years: starting wars, punishing free speech, making it illegal to own gold..

Some people have forgotten about the spirit of Resistance that gave our people Rights to begin with.

I don't think it's extreme, I would say it means freedom and non- interventonalism.

I don't think more government is the answer, and my biggest beef with you Liberals, is you think ONLY government is the answer. And you don't care what they're doing with regards to taking our Rights and, killing/detaining citizens.

In fact, you're acting like I'm radical because I believe in Human Rights, and not a government which spies on people, prints fake money, wages wars for corporate interests and, arrest people for Victimless "crimes" involving drugs. They do it to make profit.



There's no reason to trust him, or the sociopaths in the Federal Government. I think wanting more federal government is going in the opposite direction- and, Republicans, Liberals and, Democrats all support expanding government, which will also inadvertently raise taxes and give them more control to commit force, that you Liberals will ignore.

War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is strength.

 

So... this thread is about liberals?

 

This is something you have made up about me from the very first time I suggested Obama might have made SOME good decisions economically and socially.

Most of the time I don't respond to all of that because it's usually part of a tirade that isn't related to the topic at hand... and you seem to take my lack of a response to your irrelevant digressions as support.

I got that idea from the fact that you posted a graph showing how small businesses weren't creating jobs. WHY did you post that graph if it wasn't part of your point?

Oh wait, it's because you didn't look at it and thought it was proving something else.

This is exactly what Obama did back in 2009. In fact, there were 18 different tax cuts enacted for small businesses alone. This is why small businesses have been growing their profits in the past few years, while also hiring fewer people, just like that graph you posted showed.

Why is this not good enough, Stp?

Now you're going to tell me about the lemonade stands again aren't you? Yes, lemonade stands are a pillar of the global economy and pissant mayors in backwater towns cracking down on them is going to destroy hardworking Americans everywhere. Because of Obama.

How does this prove that it's because taxes are too high? I have already explained to you, tax cuts are only going to increase profits-- NOT create new jobs.

I'm not disagreeing that fewer jobs are being created, I'm saying that tax cuts and fewer regulations aren't going to reverse this.

Now you're blaming the federal government for poverty in Texas? Social security and other federal programs are probably the only reason that the poverty rate in Texas isn't through the roof.

You talked about Texas having high economic growth because of low taxes, and I told you that it also had one of the highest poverty rates. You have ignored this point completely.

New Hampshire has the lowest poverty rate, and while income tax is low property tax is very high. The second lowest poverty rate is New Jersey, which has one of the highest tax rates. Go ahead and ignore this one too.

So what, tax cuts are a bad thing now?

And you really need to stop grouping in economic, social, privacy concerns into one thing. This is why it's so hard to argue with you-- you start a thread about economics and it becomes one about war and terrorism and gun rights and everything at once.

So if I make a point about the economy, suddenly I also blindly agree with Obama all the time, support the FDA, drone strikes, and rapist cops breaking into people's homes to steal their guns.

Maybe absolute power corrupts absolutely but I really don't think that Obama is as powerful as you think. Politicians aren't kings and queens and princes playing god, they're office workers whose decisions just happen to effect millions of people. They're mostly about trying to do just the right amount of things in order to get re-elected by the ordinary people while not pissing off the people with all of the money.

It's not about how much it costs, it's about whether or not the biggest number of people can afford it. And yes, there is a difference.

And it's not about government 'taking over'-- it doesn't have to be centrally run/controlled, just centrally funded. Just because I think government programs work it doesn't mean I think they should all be turned into surveillance systems or state propaganda machines.

And there are more considerations besides just cost-- quality/coverage/scope is important as well. You can buy cheap Chinese TVs from Walmart and end up spending more money replacing them than you would on a high-quality model that lasts 5 times as long.

What the fuck are you even talking about? Where have I said you think this?

WHY are you talking about civil liberties in a thread about the economy? What do they have to do with taxes on businesses and jobs and how to stimulate the economy?

You have said this hundreds and hundreds of times, and I have not disagreed that governments are interested in the kind of stable, long-term economic growth that corporations can provide (small businesses tend to be precarious/fail, and are only interesting to speculative investors willing to assume a lot of risk).

BUT there are ways of running corporations so that they work to benefit the largest number of people (ie: Scandinavia), and there are ways of running corporations so that they benefit a small handful of people (ie: America).

Yes, all systems and all civilizations collapse... I DON'T think the system is fine or getting better-- but it has the potential to. There are problems but for the most part in pure economic terms the crisis is over and market confidence is sky high.

BUT of course this isn't the same as social/employment conditions so these need to be addressed.

Rapid deflation was a threat but not anymore. Rates are now comparable to where they were before the crash. Of course since interest rates need to rise again and taxes need to go back to normal levels (and hopefully higher for the rich), there is going to be uncertainty and instability, but that doesn't mean that every single bump means it's the end of the world.

You keep throwing random ideas out there... you're like some ADHD kid who knows he can get what he wants by making his parents tired. Let's focus on the economy here and save all of the other bullshit for a different thread, okay?

LOL the Queen. The monarchy is symbolic, like a museum or a statue. It has practically no influence on policy.

You really do need to grow up. I've answered this hundreds and hundreds of times and you keep repeating it. It's boring-- move on.

Soooo many assumptions.

And yes, giving money to the corporations isn't helping them at all.
Good point.

Well, first off-- congrats on actually doing some research beyond fringe blogs with names like 'rogueoperator', 'prisonplanet' and 'scaryguywithlotsofgunsonhisbed'.

The 60% tax rate is on the top earners only, and there are social programs galore. And yes, they do work because once again, Scandinavia is the happiest area in the world.

Some right-wingers, knowing they're in trouble, have started pretending that Sweden or whatever is some model for economic freedom and a reason to lower taxes... and yes, they have lowered taxes-- from 90% to 60%, still almost double what the taxes in the US are.

I'm tired now... I need to stop replying because it's the same thing over and over and I always have to explain things to you because you're too lazy to do your own research.

 

yes, we are. It's just a matter of time before the government collapses under the debt and the dollar becomes totally worthless.

click through the next article

 

My eyes were opened recently when I learned Suddam Hussein had started selling oil for euros, and Gaddafi was trying to switch from the dollar to a gold coin. The Rothschilds started to dominate the world economy when Napoleon was defeated at Waterloo and Rothschild was privy to the information before anyone else. Since then a select few have been calling all the shots politically and economically ... and militarily.

 

Ta Hell! do I care about when in this millenium the us crumbles to roman ashes.

 

we are witnessing the suicide of america, by 'conserving' the 'values' of hatred, ego, and greed.

america did not trade its freedom for security.
america traded its freedom for greed.
which is neither security nor freedom.

this process did not begin one year ago, nor 14 years ago, nor 35 years ago, though it significantly accelerated at that time.
it began when the first european settlers arrived in the western hemisphere, bringing with them the concept of divine authority of sovereignty.

 

Quite boring. Sorry.

 

Well then, in that case, America traded everything for entertainment. Now are you amused? What have you lost besides the 10 seconds of paying me (attention)? Your soul. :love:

Just kidding, Odon.

 

yes, reality often is. it is only made exciting by people writing stories about it after the fact.
(usually rather fanciful and exaggerated ones at that)