The REAL PROBLEM OF USA ! ! !

Discussion in 'World Events' started by Luis A.C.ROMANELLI, Mar 20, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Page 4 of 4
  1. Fraggle Rocker

    Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    They never came close to that model, although some were "democracies" in the Classical tradition, in which only a small percentage of the population were able to vote, and even in the most democratic states voting was restricted to males who owned real estate. In South Carolina something like 80% of the population were defined as slaves so it was a feudal society, yet even there the land-owning light-skinned males could vote their leader out of office.
    Yes, but not in the way it is presented in the Southern version of history. The South actually wanted to suppress the rights of the Northern states to outlaw slavery, to the extent of automatically freeing any slave that was brought into the state, even the cook, maid and butler of a family of planters on holiday. They wanted the federal law allowing slaveholding to supercede all state laws. It was actually the Union that was fighting for states' rights and the Confederacy that was fighting against them. It wasn't until 1863 that Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing all the slaves in the putative country, including those in Missouri, Kentucky and Maryland, Union states in which slavery had been quietly tolerated until that moment.
    I don't understand your question. The legitimacy of a country derives exclusively from its recognition by other governments. By that measure, we are definitely legitimate, while Tibet is not and Palestine's status is yet to be determined.
    That was the final complaint that drove us to war, but it was not the only one. We would not have been very happy to be ruled by a distant king without representation, even if he were not taxing us. The point is, I suppose, that in those days of primitive communication and slow transporation, the primary manifestation of sovereignty over the enormous space of an ocean was, indeed, the ability to levy taxes.
    The French Revolution would surely have happened anyway. America was always cozy with France, after all they built and donated the Statue of Liberty. The Enlightenment is considered to have begun in France and we enthusiastically joined in. A huge minority of Americans wanted to enter WWI on the German side since there was still considerable hostility toward England. It may have been our warm feelings toward the French that tipped the balance.
    We've always been a rather informal people. Why write a letter when you can do the job with a six-gun?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Regardless of our past, which is no more complicated than that of any other nation, we are today united. If you doubt that then you must have slept through 9/11 and its aftermath.

    Southerners long ago stopped resenting being called Yankees by the people in Europe who saw them fighting side-by-side with Yankees instead of shooting us. When Rick Perry speaks of secession none of his fellow Texans regard it as more than a rude joke. (What did Rick Perry's classmates write about him in their high school yearbook? "Most likely to secede!") They've already seceded from two countries and they don't want to go through it again. The next time, there might not be anybody willing to take them back.
    Something about sticking our teeth up our backside and laughing through another orifice, if my Portuguese is serviceable.
     
    Fraggle Rocker, Dec 2, 2011
    #61

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. aaqucnaona

    aaqucnaona This sentence is a lie Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,620
    The name is America. No one even refers to it a united states of america, they call it either US or America.
     
    aaqucnaona, Dec 2, 2011
    #62

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Billy T

    Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    No, it was about economics, as most things are, when stripped of their more "noble" cover stories like: "The Civil War was to free the slaves" Or “States Rights” are being usurped by the Federal Government, Or new states must enter the unions as "No Slaves states" etc.

    England had a huge market for textiles (India and other colonies were not allowed to buy from others.) and more productive steam powered looms. The US's water powered looms in the New England states were less productive and their main market was only the US.

    Thus England could and did offer US's Southern cotton producers much more for their cotton. This was destroying the profits of the New England textiles mills. They wanted the South to sell them their cotton at lower prices and South wanted to sell to England for more.

    Most of the South's cotton was shipped out of the Charleston SC harbor as it was closer to England and near the main cotton growing region. Fort Sumter, controlled by the North, sits on an Island and its canons can close shipping to & from that harbor. It is not clear how much that fort limited shipments of cotton to England, but it could terminate them at anytime of the North's choosing. - An ever present threat to the South's economy. Some Southerns fired on the fort and that started the "hot phase" of the civil war although there had been some minor hostilities in the prior year. As I recall, the north was strengthening the fort and improving its guns, so it was sort of "now or never" for the Southerners.

    Most of the other reasons offered do have some elements of truth, but economic factors are normally dominate. For example, most of the US's recent wars have access to oil as their true foundation but as always there is a more noble cover story. (Spread "freedom and Democracy," etc.)

    China's and the US's modern weapons are so destructive that the current war between them is (and will remain) economic. It started more than a decade go and China is clearly winning, but few are calling it a war. (They will when the US collapses and a gold backed RMB is the preferred reserve currency for central banks to hold. - See post 55 for more details.)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 2, 2011
    Billy T, Dec 2, 2011
    #63

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Diode-Man

    Diode-Man Awesome User Title Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,372
    lol
     
    Diode-Man, Dec 2, 2011
    #64
  8. Billy T

    Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Answer: more modern factories (Financed by rich westerners seeking much higher RoE)* and cheaper labor in Asia.

    "... According to the BLS, the unemployment rate dropped to 8.6% as the economy added 120,000 jobs in November. ... This number is manipulated to put the best face on the picture. Not included in this number is the fact that 315,000 people stopped looking for a job last month. Also, retailers added the most jobs of any sector at 50,000. - Seasonal jobs most gone after Christmas. ..."

    Data from: Inside Investing Daily's Sara Nunnally, Editor

    but as an example of how even this mess can be spun to look good see:
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...s-to-three-year-high-amid-payroll-growth.html An article with title: "U.S. Job-Prospects Index Climbs to 3-Year High"

    Billy T comment: A more truthful picture is:

    120,000 - 315,000 - (~2/3)50,000 = 120,000 - 388,000 = 228,000 more without work work each month after Christmas (not even counting those just entering the labor force)!

    *GWB's tax reductions for the already very rich, their special breaks in the tax law (lower capital gains rates, "depletion allowances", etc.) IMHO, income is income and all types should be taxed the same - then Warren Buffett's secretary would not pay twice as high a percentage of her income as he does. He would, and should, pay a higher percentage of his as we do have (so the fiction goes) progressive tax rates.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 5, 2011
    Billy T, Dec 5, 2011
    #65
  9. billvon

    billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,644
    That doesn't solve the problem of Warren Buffet not paying taxes. During a bad year, when his portfolio loses value, he pays zero - and his secretary still pays her taxes. (He still has billions in the bank, of course, so he doesn't care.)
     
    billvon, Dec 5, 2011
    #66
  10. Billy T

    Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    I don't see that as a Problem. I certainly was not trying to make rich people pay taxes even when they lose money. But on longer term than one year I quite sure Warren will pay a lot of taxes, even though less than he could and should with the current system.
     
    Billy T, Dec 5, 2011
    #67
  11. hypewaders

    hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    Funny!

    Closed.

    If you have something at least as funny to add, do let me know.
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2011
    hypewaders, Dec 13, 2011
    #68
Page 4 of 4
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page