Here is my question, if you are rich and feel like you want to give more of YOUR money to the government, shouldn't it be possible to find a way of doing that without FORCING everyone else in your wealth bracket to do the same?
Warren Buffet summed it up pretty well, explaining that the money he earned wasn't all HIS money -- he was able to succeed so well because of systems already in place that require money to operate. So he's all in favor of wealthier people -- those who have benefitted the most from that previous investment -- be the primary investors in it going forward.
It's only the Gollum-like insistence that every penny that comes your way is YOUR MONEY that creates the disconnect.
Here is my question, if you are rich and feel like you want to give more of YOUR money to the government, shouldn't it be possible to find a way of doing that without FORCING everyone else in your wealth bracket to do the same?Warren Buffet summed it up pretty well, explaining that the money he earned wasn't all HIS money -- he was able to succeed so well because of systems already in place that require money to operate. So he's all in favor of wealthier people -- those who have benefitted the most from that previous investment -- be the primary investors in it going forward.
It's only the Gollum-like insistence that every penny that comes your way is YOUR MONEY that creates the disconnect.
I'm not I know what you mean by "comes your way". Do you mean earn?
If so then I disagree. I think the money I earn is mine, and the money you earn is yours. Why should a third party take the money you earned with out your consent to use for things you disapprove of. Why should they have the power to criminalize what you do or don't do with your property?
I think the income tax is a horrible way to finance the government.
Why is the notion that you have a right to decide how you use money you earn so odd? (If I understand your point)
I'm not I know what you mean by "comes your way". Do you mean earn?
"Earn" is a funny word. If your definition includes things like "do nothing, and collect revenue on money you didn't earn," then yes, I suppose heirs "earn" their money. If you mean "receive as fair compensation for labor, skill, and effort," then the whole system is wildly out of whack and that definition doesn't really apply.
The way things are set up, if you start with more, you end up with more unless you're a total moron. If you start with less, it's an awful lot harder to get more -- it can be done, but only with some breaks that may or may not come your way. More importantly, as things are, there's no level scale of compensation vs. skill, effort, and time. I might work half as hard as the next guy, using an eighth of the skill he does, and get paid twice as much -- and leave him by default to pick up the slack in my company. If that's true, half of "my" money should really be his. And vice-versa.
"I earn MY money" implies a state of meritocracy which exists only in schoolboy fantasies.
Here is my question, if you are rich and feel like you want to give more of YOUR money to the government, shouldn't it be possible to find a way of doing that without FORCING everyone else in your wealth bracket to do the same?Warren Buffet summed it up pretty well, explaining that the money he earned wasn't all HIS money -- he was able to succeed so well because of systems already in place that require money to operate. So he's all in favor of wealthier people -- those who have benefitted the most from that previous investment -- be the primary investors in it going forward.
It's only the Gollum-like insistence that every penny that comes your way is YOUR MONEY that creates the disconnect.
So is there any wealth that a person can claim as their own property or does it all really belong to society?
So is there any wealth that a person can claim as their own property or does all really belong to society?
It's not a zero-sum game; if a person adds more value to the system than he takes out of it or uses up in getting there, then I'd say he's entitled to a fair cut of the difference. If he's used up more opportunities than he's created, then no, I don't think he has absolute title to anthing, even if his tax retuerns say he's "worth" millions.
Earn" is a funny word. If your definition includes things like "do nothing, and collect revenue on money you didn't earn," then yes, I suppose heirs "earn" their money. If you mean "receive as fair compensation for labor, skill, and effort," then the whole system is wildly out of whack and that definition doesn't really apply.
The way things are set up, if you start with more, you end up with more unless you're a total moron. If you start with less, it's an awful lot harder to get more -- it can be done, but only with some breaks that may or may not come your way. More importantly, as things are, there's no level scale of compensation vs. skill, effort, and time. I might work half as hard as the next guy, using an eighth of the skill he does, and get paid twice as much -- and leave him by default to pick up the slack in my company. If that's true, half of "my" money should really be his. And vice-versa.
"I earn MY money" implies a state of meritocracy which exists only in schoolboy fantasies.
Thank you.
So is there any wealth that a person can claim as their own property or does all really belong to society?It's not a zero-sum game; if a person adds more value to the system than he takes out of it or uses up in getting there, then I'd say he's entitled to a fair cut of the difference. If he's used up more opportunities than he's created, then no, I don't think he has absolute title to anthing, even if his tax retuerns say he's "worth" millions.
Who gets to make and enforce that decision in your model?
Who gets to make and enforce that decision in your model?
Who makes and enforces it now?
Hint: It isn't the "free market."
Who gets to make and enforce that decision in your model?
I'm not hardly at the point of calling it a model. Certainly I think that if decisions are left entirely up to the magic "perfection" of total no-rules laissez-faire capitalism on the one hand, or the utter breathtaking idiocy of government mandates on the other, then we all lose. When those two are fighting each other, I sleep better.
What I can say is that we're pretty far off from any point at which "earn" has even a tiny fraction of the meaning that people attribute to it.
Who gets to make and enforce that decision in your model?Who makes and enforces it now?
Hint: It isn't the "free market."
The state interferes with and manipulates the market so much that it certainly isn't free.
I don't understand why shareholders don't hold executives to a higher standard, but I am a big fan of meritocracy.
Labor and skill are certainly undervalued in my opinion, and too many factors outside of merit determine pay, but part of the blame for that lies with the government. Should the state determine everyone's wages? I'm not saying that this is your position, but if workers and owners aren't the ones to set wages who is left?
... part of the blame for that lies with the government.
I tend to feel that the government's myriad array of grotesque shortcomings are largely symptomatic of human nature. Replacing government with a 100% free market won't help -- we've seen in history that the same problems pop up, for much the same reasons. Intentionally setting up a semi-adversarial separation of power -- while hardly ideal -- is about the best realistic solution we've got.
... part of the blame for that lies with the government.I tend to feel that the government's myriad array of grotesque shortcomings are largely symptomatic of human nature. Replacing government with a 100% free market won't help -- we've seen in history that the same problems pop up, for much the same reasons. Intentionally setting up a semi-adversarial separation of power -- while hardly ideal -- is about the best realistic solution we've got.
What do you mean by 100% free market in history?
I would certainly like to see more freedom and less state; of course I think that is a largely zero sum game (not entirely or I'd be an anarcho-capitolist).
People will do stupid and hateful things with freedom, but the government will do stupid and hateful things on a much larger scale. I prefer the former to the latter.
The state interferes with and manipulates the market so much that it certainly isn't free.I don't understand why shareholders don't hold executives to a higher standard, but I am a big fan of meritocracy.
Labor and skill are certainly undervalued in my opinion, and too many factors outside of merit determine pay, but part of the blame for that lies with the government. Should the state determine everyone's wages? I'm not saying that this is your position, but if workers and owners aren't the ones to set wages who is left?
I think the market (workers and owners) *should* be the ones to determine wages. But, because perfect information is impossible, a truly free market is equally impossible. In addition, a hypothetical free market isn't always the best solution -- for example, game theory teaches us that everyone trying to get the best result for themselves doesn't always lead to the best collective outcome. Therefore society must occasionally act in concert to balance matters when the free market cannot. That's the role of the government: To keep the playing field fair, and to make sure everyone truly understands the decisions they're making.
When the state abuses it's power, as it tends to do, then society is denied the efficiencies of the market. Likewise, when employers abuse their power, as they tend to do, then society is denied the efficiencies of the market. Even employees will abuse power when they have it (unfair government concessions to labor unions, for example). The takeaway here is that many (most) people will abuse power if there are no checks and balances.
So, to try to give a concrete answer: I mostly like our system, I just think the government should shape policy to try to move us closer to a meritocracy. For example, I'd prefer to see labor rewarded more and ownership of capital rewarded less, which (imo) would encourage economic mobility. As it stands, the single biggest factor determining wealth at the end of life is wealth at the beginning, and I think that's bad for everyone.
Philosophically, I think the best description of my economic position is Keynesian.
... part of the blame for that lies with the government.I tend to feel that the government's myriad array of grotesque shortcomings are largely symptomatic of human nature. Replacing government with a 100% free market won't help -- we've seen in history that the same problems pop up, for much the same reasons. Intentionally setting up a semi-adversarial separation of power -- while hardly ideal -- is about the best realistic solution we've got.What do you mean by 100% free market in history?
I would certainly like to see more freedom and less state; of course I think that is a largely zero sum game (not entirely or I'd be an anarcho-capitolist).
People will do stupid and hateful things with freedom, but the government will do stupid and hateful things on a much larger scale. I prefer the former to the latter.
But the government *is* people!
As for a 100% (or close to it) free market: I can't speak for Kirth, but I'd guess he's referring to the extreme labor conditions of the Gilded Age.
You're thinking of soylent green.
But the government *is* people!
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
But the government *is* people!
I don't agree with this anymore than the notion that we live in a pure meritocracy.
The notion of our current government being by and for the people is an utter fairy tale. I think those in power see the governed as contemptible livestock to be used and managed. Politicians do not see themselves as our servants. They see us as something to scrape off the bottom of their shoe.
EDIT: If that was sarcasm or humor I'm going to feel silly.
EDIT2: Now I see it doesn't say "the" people, and I feel silly for being the last guy to catch the joke.
Yesterday, my dad had a heart attack. He is 'okay', thanks to the swift provision of an Angioplasty at basildon hospital. He gets his echo today, and we find out how bad the damage is. He'll then recieve on going treatment, for as long as he needs it.
My dad is not a very happy or well man. His mother was an alcholic as is he. While he does work, his illness limits his income and influences his priorities.
Simply put, through no fault of his own, my father would not be able to maintain health insurance payment, and even if he could it is not certain that he would be covered.
Yet, here he is, receiving care at a specialist cardiovascular unit, and on going care, free at point of use. His care is the priority, not profit an insurance company.
He has over the years, more than payed for his treatment, thanks to taxation.
All this got me thinking. For all that i have argued for Heath Care reforms, i still don't really understand the other sides view point.
So i guess i would like to understand more.
Have any of you supporters seen what MassCare did to Massachusetts? Seriously? It's bankrupting the system, and that same system is now going to be applied federally. Do you really think our federal government is going to do a better job?
I don't understand why it is, that you think a private system, is preferable. I don't understand why you seem to think a system that protects that are vulnerable, is wrong? I just don't understand why you wouldn't want a national health service in the US. It just blows my mind. I don't get it.
The state interferes with and manipulates the market so much that it certainly isn't free.I don't understand why shareholders don't hold executives to a higher standard, but I am a big fan of meritocracy.
Labor and skill are certainly undervalued in my opinion, and too many factors outside of merit determine pay, but part of the blame for that lies with the government. Should the state determine everyone's wages? I'm not saying that this is your position, but if workers and owners aren't the ones to set wages who is left?
I think the market (workers and owners) *should* be the ones to determine wages. But, because perfect information is impossible, a truly free market is equally impossible. In addition, a hypothetical free market isn't always the best solution -- for example, game theory teaches us that everyone trying to get the best result for themselves doesn't always lead to the best collective outcome. Therefore society must occasionally act in concert to balance matters when the free market cannot. That's the role of the government: To keep the playing field fair, and to make sure everyone truly understands the decisions they're making.
When the state abuses it's power, as it tends to do, then society is denied the efficiencies of the market. Likewise, when employers abuse their power, as they tend to do, then society is denied the efficiencies of the market. Even employees will abuse power when they have it (unfair government concessions to labor unions, for example). The takeaway here is that many (most) people will abuse power if there are no checks and balances.
So, to try to give a concrete answer: I mostly like our system, I just think the government should shape policy to try to move us closer to a meritocracy. For example, I'd prefer to see labor rewarded more and ownership of capital rewarded less, which (imo) would encourage economic mobility. As it stands, the single biggest factor determining wealth at the end of life is wealth at the...
As a Keynesian how do you feel about the stimulus and TARP?
Obviously I detest them.
So is there any wealth that a person can claim as their own property or does all really belong to society?It's not a zero-sum game; if a person adds more value to the system than he takes out of it or uses up in getting there, then I'd say he's entitled to a fair cut of the difference. If he's used up more opportunities than he's created, then no, I don't think he has absolute title to anthing, even if his tax retuerns say he's "worth" millions.
I kind of feel like that is a moving target. How do we measure "adding value" to the system?
Also you seem to have something against investors. Let's say I take some of the wealth that I "earned" (I got paid for doing labor). I then take some of the extra amount over what I need to live and loan it to someone else to finance a business, like say a game company. I earn interest on this loan, but haven't done any additional "labor" beyond what I did initially to build the surplus that I could loan out. Why I am not considered to have "earned" the interest from my investment? Didn't I take a risk by investing in this other person's idea and if it fell through I would have lost that extra money. Didn't I create additional wealth in the system by giving this person the tools to get their business idea off the ground? So why am I not entitled to that "earned interest"?
As a Keynesian how do you feel about the stimulus and TARP?
Obviously I detest them.
Briefly, since I have to go do chores before the gf gets home... :P
1. I'm ok with the idea of a stimulus, as long as it's well implemented. I don't pretend to know if The Stimulus was/is.
2. I'm not a fan of the TARP; it feels like the people bailing out a bunch of bankers who should have known better. Is it possible that we'd worked ourselves into a corner that made it necessary? Again, I don't know, but I tend to think not.
So is there any wealth that a person can claim as their own property or does all really belong to society?It's not a zero-sum game; if a person adds more value to the system than he takes out of it or uses up in getting there, then I'd say he's entitled to a fair cut of the difference. If he's used up more opportunities than he's created, then no, I don't think he has absolute title to anthing, even if his tax retuerns say he's "worth" millions.I kind of feel like that is a moving target. How do we measure "adding value" to the system?
Also you seem to have something against investors. Let's say I take some of the wealth that I "earned" (I got paid for doing labor). I then take some of the extra amount over what I need to live and loan it to someone else to finance a business, like say a game company. I earn interest on this loan, but haven't done any additional "labor" beyond what I did initially to build the surplus that I could loan out. Why I am not considered to have "earned" the interest from my investment? Didn't I take a risk by investing in this other person's idea and if it fell through I would have lost that extra money. Didn't I create additional wealth in the system by giving this person the tools to get their business idea off the ground? So why am I not entitled to that "earned interest"?
Not directed @ me, but briefly:
I'm fine with earned interest; I just think we disproportionally reward capital at the expense of labor. Also, it seems to me you're painting a an ideal picture that doesn't quite exist in the real world; the deck seems stacked (to me) in favor of the investor (See: TARP).
So is there any wealth that a person can claim as their own property or does all really belong to society?It's not a zero-sum game; if a person adds more value to the system than he takes out of it or uses up in getting there, then I'd say he's entitled to a fair cut of the difference. If he's used up more opportunities than he's created, then no, I don't think he has absolute title to anthing, even if his tax retuerns say he's "worth" millions.I kind of feel like that is a moving target. How do we measure "adding value" to the system?
Also you seem to have something against investors. Let's say I take some of the wealth that I "earned" (I got paid for doing labor). I then take some of the extra amount over what I need to live and loan it to someone else to finance a business, like say a game company. I earn interest on this loan, but haven't done any additional "labor" beyond what I did initially to build the surplus that I could loan out. Why I am not considered to have "earned" the interest from my investment? Didn't I take a risk by investing in this other person's idea and if it fell through I would have lost that extra money. Didn't I create additional wealth in the system by giving this person the tools to get their business idea off the ground? So why am I not entitled to that "earned interest"?
Not directed @ me, but briefly:
I'm fine with earned interest; I just think we disproportionally reward capital at the expense of labor. Also, it seems to me you're painting a an ideal picture that doesn't quite exist in the real world; the deck seems stacked (to me) in favor of the investor (See: TARP).
Lots of small investors lost a lot of money and TARP didn't help them one bit.
Lots of small investors lost a lot of money and TARP didn't help them one bit.So is there any wealth that a person can claim as their own property or does all really belong to society?It's not a zero-sum game; if a person adds more value to the system than he takes out of it or uses up in getting there, then I'd say he's entitled to a fair cut of the difference. If he's used up more opportunities than he's created, then no, I don't think he has absolute title to anthing, even if his tax retuerns say he's "worth" millions.I kind of feel like that is a moving target. How do we measure "adding value" to the system?
Also you seem to have something against investors. Let's say I take some of the wealth that I "earned" (I got paid for doing labor). I then take some of the extra amount over what I need to live and loan it to someone else to finance a business, like say a game company. I earn interest on this loan, but haven't done any additional "labor" beyond what I did initially to build the surplus that I could loan out. Why I am not considered to have "earned" the interest from my investment? Didn't I take a risk by investing in this other person's idea and if it fell through I would have lost that extra money. Didn't I create additional wealth in the system by giving this person the tools to get their business idea off the ground? So why am I not entitled to that "earned interest"?
Not directed @ me, but briefly:
I'm fine with earned interest; I just think we disproportionally reward capital at the expense of labor. Also, it seems to me you're painting a an ideal picture that doesn't quite exist in the real world; the deck seems stacked (to me) in favor of the investor (See: TARP).
They weren't TBTF. Of course TBTF just means that you have bought enough politicians to do whatever the heck you want.
Yesterday, my dad had a heart attack. He is 'okay', thanks to the swift provision of an Angioplasty at basildon hospital. He gets his echo today, and we find out how bad the damage is. He'll then recieve on going treatment, for as long as he needs it.
My dad is not a very happy or well man. His mother was an alcholic as is he. While he does work, his illness limits his income and influences his priorities.
Simply put, through no fault of his own, my father would not be able to maintain health insurance payment, and even if he could it is not certain that he would be covered.
Yet, here he is, receiving care at a specialist cardiovascular unit, and on going care, free at point of use. His care is the priority, not profit an insurance company.
He has over the years, more than payed for his treatment, thanks to taxation.
All this got me thinking. For all that i have argued for Heath Care reforms, i still don't really understand the other sides view point.
So i guess i would like to understand more.
Have any of you supporters seen what MassCare did to Massachusetts? Seriously? It's bankrupting the system, and that same system is now going to be applied federally. Do you really think our federal government is going to do a better job?
I don't understand why it is, that you think a private system, is preferable. I don't understand why you seem to think a system that protects that are vulnerable, is wrong? I just don't understand why you wouldn't want a national health service in the US. It just blows my mind. I don't get it.
I don't want it dude because it's bankrupting the economy - the Masachusetts test has failed - it's reality, that's why. Not because I am a fan of the current system. Guess what? A bankrupt economy is bad for all of us whether you are left wing, right wing, or spicy wings - whatever wing, we can't afford to let the government take all of us into the poor house. Talk to people that live in socialized healthcare systems and they hate it. Trust me I work with a Ukrainian woman and another guy from Albania or something, I forget which. But the truth is this - you will regret it if everything doesn't get unwound before 2014.
Lots of small investors lost a lot of money and TARP didn't help them one bit.
Naturally; I never said there weren't. The world isn't binary.
As to the larger issue: Groups with too much power, be they government, corporation, or gaming company, will tend to abuse that power. What I don't get is why some people look at government and consistently see the worst-case scenario, but then look at business and consistently see the best.
Also you seem to have something against investors.
If you read my post, that was answered. I'm all in favor of investing one's wages against the future, rather than spending them willy-nilly. What I disagree with is that someone who never worked at all (inherited all their money) can be said to be "earning" "their" money by sitting and doing nothing. Maybe that's just me crying sour grapes because I don't plan on inheriting anything, but honestly, I'd be a lot more impressed with financial success in life as being "earned" if everyone started at GO, rather than some people starting at the finish line.
How do we measure "adding value" to the system?
See my response to the same question when Bitter Thorn asked it.
Also you seem to have something against investors.If you read my post, that was answered. I'm all in favor of investing one's wages against the future, rather than spending them willy-nilly. What I disagree with is that someone who never worked at all (inherited all their money) can be said to be "earning" "their" money by sitting and doing nothing. Maybe that's just me crying sour grapes because I don't plan on inheriting anything, but honestly, I'd be a lot more impressed with financial success in life as being "earned" if everyone started at GO, rather than some people starting at the finish line.
I once heard an NPR report that half of all millionaries come from a middle class background.
I once heard an NPR report that half of all millionaries come from a middle class background.
The implication being that the large majority of other half were millionaires to begin with? That doesn't say a lot for a level playing field.
I once heard an NPR report that half of all millionaries come from a middle class background.The implication being that the large majority of other half were millionaires to begin with? That doesn't say a lot for a level playing field.
I think part of the issue is you are comparing yourself to these later generations. Why not compare yourself to these people's parent/grandparent/great-grandparent? Those people worked their butts off and built a legacy for their family. Frankly, if I am not going to be wealth during my lifetime, I would at least like to think I helped my (grand)children get that much closer to it.
[quote=]"I must study politics and war, that my sons may have the liberty to study mathematics and philosophy, natural history and naval architecture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, tapestry, and porcelain.”
John Adams
|
You really want a reaction, call it Europastan. But, then, Europeans have a tendency to chant mindlessly like King Arnulf of Atlantis while the island is sinking.
I totally resent that comment. You have no bloody idea about Europeans, except maybe what Fox News dishes out. Way to go and rain on the guys who back you up in every goddam war you dream up on the premise of National Security. Shit we've paid the price for your help in WWII that Churchill had to bloody beg for on bended knee.
Who are the first allies on the ground when you need em, Britain (European)! I read the papers about Iraq and Afghanistan and all I read are American soldiers who died. There are Britons, Germans, Italians, Poles and Canadians out there dying too and for what! A lame war to overthrow a dictator in a country that had no links to al-qaida, when we should have been concentrating solely on destroying bin Laden. Bush only wanted to get rid of Saddam because "he tried to kill my daddy" referring to H W Bush who was a finer man than his son by a mile.
All I can say to you is that you spout from ignorance, and I hope to God in Heaven the majority of your countrymen don't think any way like you.
|
I'm not I know what you mean by "comes your way". Do you mean earn?"Earn" is a funny word. If your definition includes things like "do nothing, and collect revenue on money you didn't earn," then yes, I suppose heirs "earn" their money. If you mean "receive as fair compensation for labor, skill, and effort," then the whole system is wildly out of whack and that definition doesn't really apply.
The way things are set up, if you start with more, you end up with more unless you're a total moron. If you start with less, it's an awful lot harder to get more -- it can be done, but only with some breaks that may or may not come your way. More importantly, as things are, there's no level scale of compensation vs. skill, effort, and time. I might work half as hard as the next guy, using an eighth of the skill he does, and get paid twice as much -- and leave him by default to pick up the slack in my company. If that's true, half of "my" money should really be his. And vice-versa.
"I earn MY money" implies a state of meritocracy which exists only in schoolboy fantasies.
Using Warren Buffet as an example is kind of weird, considering that he made his money by the most anti-capitalist way possible, that is, playing the market. [I will forego my standard "Wall Street has nothing to do with capitalism" rant, Kirth's heard it enough times already]
In his case, he didn't "earn" shit, really. He just created a lot of inflation and money that didn't come from anything tangible.
And, really, it is OUR money. We foolishly entrusted the idiots in Washington to use a percentage of our incomes wisely, forgetting that we tend to elect morons who can barely tie their shoes, let alone resist the urge to spend like drunk sorority girls on crack.
|
|
... part of the blame for that lies with the government.I tend to feel that the government's myriad array of grotesque shortcomings are largely symptomatic of human nature. Replacing government with a 100% free market won't help -- we've seen in history that the same problems pop up, for much the same reasons. Intentionally setting up a semi-adversarial separation of power -- while hardly ideal -- is about the best realistic solution we've got.
The only "100% free market" that I've ever seen is the one that landed my ass in the hoosegow.
The concept hasn't existed in the real world pretty much ever.
|
|
You really want a reaction, call it Europastan. But, then, Europeans have a tendency to chant mindlessly like King Arnulf of Atlantis while the island is sinking.I totally resent that comment. You have no bloody idea about Europeans, except maybe what Fox News dishes out. Way to go and rain on the guys who back you up in every goddam war you dream up on the premise of National Security. s@*& we've paid the price for your help in WWII that Churchill had to bloody beg for on bended knee.
Who are the first allies on the ground when you need em, Britain (European)! I read the papers about Iraq and Afghanistan and all I read are American soldiers who died. There are Britons, Germans, Italians, Poles and Canadians out there dying too and for what! A lame war to overthrow a dictator in a country that had no links to al-qaida, when we should have been concentrating solely on destroying bin Laden. Bush only wanted to get rid of Saddam because "he tried to kill my daddy" referring to H W Bush who was a finer man than his son by a mile.
All I can say to you is that you spout from ignorance, and I hope to God in Heaven the majority of your countrymen don't think any way like you.
Ah, the "ignorant American who gets his info form Fox News" gambit. No, actually my opinion comes from reading the European rags and following events in the Netherlands (free speech is dead there, apparently), Great Britain (hmmm, Sharia courts? British common law isn't good enough?), Switzerland, France and Italy (apparently not wanting the countryside to look like Damascus isn't PC), Sweden (wow, those murder and rape rates sure are rising), etc, etc, ad nauseum.
As far as WW2 goes, and WW1 for that matter, we should have stayed out of it. The Treaty of Versailles was a joke, bad form, and the war itself only happened because of colossal stupidity all around. WW2? Y'all had a chance to nip that in the bud, but in typical Euro fashion laid over like dogs until it was too late. Please.
So, in response to your comment about canadians and Poles dying in Iraq "for what", I ask, um, Americans dying in Europe for what? To cover your colossal stupidity and cowardice in the face of something that should have never happened except for other instances of colossal stupidity?
Get back to me when a few hundred thousand Canadians and Poles die because of Bush's stupidity. Until then, I recommend you apologize to the hundreds of thousands of American families who's sons died to make up for Euro stupidity.
|
Ah, the "ignorant American who gets his info form Fox News" gambit. No, actually my opinion comes from reading the European rags and following events in the Netherlands (free speech is dead there, apparently), Great Britain (hmmm, Sharia courts? British common law isn't good enough?), Switzerland, France and Italy (apparently not wanting the countryside to look like Damascus isn't PC), Sweden (wow, those murder and rape rates sure are rising), etc, etc, ad nauseum.
Yep, and an ignorant American is exactly what you sound like in this particular quote. And Kevin points out your ignorance of your own history.
(By the way, can you read French, Dutch, Italian and Swedish?)
|
|
Ah, the "ignorant American who gets his info form Fox News" gambit. No, actually my opinion comes from reading the European rags and following events in the Netherlands (free speech is dead there, apparently), Great Britain (hmmm, Sharia courts? British common law isn't good enough?), Switzerland, France and Italy (apparently not wanting the countryside to look like Damascus isn't PC), Sweden (wow, those murder and rape rates sure are rising), etc, etc, ad nauseum.Yep, and an ignorant American is exactly what you sound like in this particular quote. And Kevin points out your ignorance of your own history.
(By the way, can you read French, Dutch, Italian and Swedish?)
Just that particular quote? Try the whole comment.
|
As for WW 1 I'll admit it has been a few years since I studied the subject so my memory may not be 100% accurate but I do remember that there were various reasons for America getting involve which off the top off my head include.....
128 Americans being killed by the sinking of the liner Lusitania by german U-boats,
The sinking of several us merchant ships again by German U-boats
An intercepted telegram from Germany suggesting that Mexico should attack the United states if they got involved in the war and enlist Japan as an ally
|
|
Erm you do realise America got into WW 2 Because Japan attacked Pearl harbour right? After which America declared war on Japan and Germany being Japans ally declared war on America.
We were getting dragged in either way. Should have stayed out in '17, frankly.
And, considering everything, it's funny we ran to fight for Europe and put Japan on the back burner, you know, considering they were the reason we jumped in in the first place.
|
|
As for WW 1 I'll admit it has been a few years since I studied the subject so my memory may not be 100% accurate but I do remember that there were various reasons for America getting involve which off the top off my head include.....
128 Americans being killed by the sinking of the liner Lusitania by german U-boats,
The sinking of several us merchant ships again by German U-boats
An intercepted telegram from Germany suggesting that Mexico should attack the United states if they got involved in the war and enlist Japan as an ally
Yeah, they were killed after Germany posted about a zillion fliers in NYC telling Americans they were going to sink it.
And, if a "neutral" nation uses ships under its flag to supply war materials to one side of a conflict, those are legitimate targets.
So, basically, you're saying we had no business jumping in. And, hey, I agree. Should have let you Euros sort out your own mess.
|
|
Erm you do realise America got into WW 2 Because Japan attacked Pearl harbour right? After which America declared war on Japan and Germany being Japans ally declared war on America.We were getting dragged in either way. Should have stayed out in '17, frankly.
And, considering everything, it's funny we ran to fight for Europe and put Japan on the back burner, you know, considering they were the reason we jumped in in the first place.
I would hardly say it was put on the backburner. The pacific war was a very diffrent war to the one in Europe. Also the simple fact is that although the assault on Pearl harbour failed in it's main objective (Destroying the american aircraft carriers) It did do a fair amount of damage that put American forces on the back foot in the pacific for several months
|
|
Ah, the "ignorant American who gets his info form Fox News" gambit. No, actually my opinion comes from reading the European rags and following events in the Netherlands (free speech is dead there, apparently), Great Britain (hmmm, Sharia courts? British common law isn't good enough?), Switzerland, France and Italy (apparently not wanting the countryside to look like Damascus isn't PC), Sweden (wow, those murder and rape rates sure are rising), etc, etc, ad nauseum.Yep, and an ignorant American is exactly what you sound like in this particular quote. And Kevin points out your ignorance of your own history.
(By the way, can you read French, Dutch, Italian and Swedish?)
I forgot, crime stats and political trials don't translate into English. Do I have to read Farsi to have an opinion on Iran having nukes? Mandarin to have an opinion about Tibet? Swahili to think the HIV epidemic in Africa is a shame?
|
|
On a side note I'm going to take a wild guess and say the British tabloids you read are either The Sun, The Mail or the Express?On a side note, I'm going to guess you're the one who thinks it's a-ok to kill Jews but gets all bent out of shape when they kill back :)
I'm sorry what? My Grandfather was a POW during most of WW 2 and he saw the final solution firsthand How dare you accuse me of something like that.