Red army to receive 250 new types of weaponry in 2006

i'm not an economics proffessor or a proffessor in governement policy, government flaws, whatever etc. i'm actually still in Highschool, but i read a lot. anyhow, it's true the governement in the US builds roads gives subsidies, etc. but all is payed back, education loans are all paid back by the people who take them and sometimes with full interest, grants for education are mostly granted to the people with higher grades(GPA over 3.5 in college and highschool), as for roads there are toll ways etc. of course paying 75 cents to cross a bridge or so isn't much, but imagine how many people cross that bridge everyday, and everyday they have to pay, i wouldn't be surprised if the US governement makes the price of a highway, or bridge, etc. it builds in less than 3.5-7 years, which isn't bad, as a successful bussiness usually makes it's start up costs and all in at the most 7 years, otherwise it would be inefficient for a longer time period, not necessarily unsuccessful.

anyhow, all i'm saying is the US governement doesn't give enough back to the population that are paying taxes, and the fact that big corporations in the US are getting tax reliefs and even without the tax reliefs are not paying as much tax as they should(a corporation gets to spend first and pay taxes later, meaning if the corporation spend all it's income on research or whatever it won't get taxed, because it's recorded income would be 0!).

I don't think you can make the assumption the the gap in income means that the lower 80% have a lower quality of life than they did 20 years ago. All it really means is that the top people are making more money, and there's nothing wrong with that. I would prefer the US system to any socialist or fascist system out there that tries to equalize everyone.
Quality of life is tough to measure, but some people try. The Economist has an index and the US ranks 13th in the world, I'm not sure I buy the reliability of the index since Ireland is first, I like Ireland but I wouldn't call it the best quality of life. It also notes that the US has the number 2 GDP per person in the world. You can see it here:
The Economist quality of life index

There is also the United Nations Human Development Index which has the United States 10th, but all the top countries are bunch together essentially. You can find it here:

Human Development Index

If you look at the historical data, the US has actually improved since 1990 (which is the oldest I could find, although I do know that Switzerland was the leader in 1980) so I'm not sure your conclusions really hold water.

The truth is life gets better for every first world country as the years go by. The air gets cleaner, people live longer, people get wealthier, more diseases are cured. With all due respect, I think your post is innacurate.

Originally posted by INc2006
i'm not an economics proffessor or a proffessor in governement policy, government flaws, whatever etc. i'm actually still in Highschool, but i read a lot. anyhow, it's true the governement in the US builds roads gives subsidies, etc. but all is payed back, education loans are all paid back by the people who take them and sometimes with full interest, grants for education are mostly granted to the people with higher grades(GPA over 3.5 in college and highschool), as for roads there are toll ways etc. of course paying 75 cents to cross a bridge or so isn't much, but imagine how many people cross that bridge everyday, and everyday they have to pay, i wouldn't be surprised if the US governement makes the price of a highway, or bridge, etc. it builds in less than 3.5-7 years, which isn't bad, as a successful bussiness usually makes it's start up costs and all in at the most 7 years, otherwise it would be inefficient for a longer time period, not necessarily unsuccessful.

anyhow, all i'm saying is the US governement doesn't give enough back to the population that are paying taxes, and the fact that big corporations in the US are getting tax reliefs and even without the tax reliefs are not paying as much tax as they should(a corporation gets to spend first and pay taxes later, meaning if the corporation spend all it's income on research or whatever it won't get taxed, because it's recorded income would be 0!).

Since you're in high school, I will forgive you for not knowing. I don't believe there are any federal toll roads, I believe the states decide whether to put up a toll road. The federal government, I believe, has followed precedent set by President Monroe in 1822 to not charge for federal road use (someone correct me if I'm wrong, this may have changed or be changing in the future). If you use a toll road to get to work, you can also deduct it from your taxes.
Plenty of farmers that can't make a living because the price of produce is so low exist on federal subsidies, otherwise people wouldn't be able to afford to grow all the food we shove in to our pie holes.
I also suggest you look up PELL grants and SEOG grants, those are federal student grants given to people who need them for education. They are completely free, you don't pay them back. The federal loans you are referencing are also a great deal though, as the interest rate is much lower than market value and you don't pay them back until 6 months after you graduate. Some of them even have the interest subsidized, which means you don't accrue interest on your loan, making it essentially free money (the concept of what is more valuable, a dollar today or a dollar tomorrow?). In addition to the those programs, many states also subsidize education. For instance, I live in Illinois and every full time college student gets whats called the Illinois MAP grant for college. It gives every student $5000 each to go to school, absolutely free, as in no paying back.
I can't believe I even have to mention it, but the US government is also the worlds largest employer, keeping all those people in jobs. They in turn make money and spend money on houses, boats, cars, etc. which keeps the economy running. That's your taxes dollars at work as well.
I too think corporations should be paying more taxes, but rewarding them for research and development is exactly what you need to be doing in a free market economy. I'd much rather Pfizer spends their money on developing a cure for cancer than paying taxes. I don't believe in an income tax anyway, but that's a seperate post.
I don't mean this insultingly but I think you have a little bit more living and learning to do before you make assumptions about the US vs. other tax systems. It's the largest economy and the only superpower in the world, it has to be doing something right.

just take a look at the graph and rankings that prelude put up, the US is near the bottom not near the top. now i'm not saying that it should switch to Socialism and equalize everybody, that's not very good for the economy, but the problem is that 33% of the population is either under poverty or a little over poverty, about 50%-60% is the middle class, and the rest are the rich upper class. now you see there is so much difference between that rich upper class and the middle and poor calss, and still the vasic needs of an individual such as heat, water, electricity, etc. are run by that rich upper class, now the middle class keeps paying the rich, and the rich don't pay enough taxes as they should, they pay there taxes through the corporations, and in the end those big companies end up paying only 10%-50%% of the taxes theyre supposed to pay, so that way the rich get richer and the poor and middle class get poorer, why because the middle and poor class keep getting mortgages on houses, they get loaded with loans, they keep making there payment, scared that they will be late and a collection agency will knock on thier door, so they keep paying the big corporations and as soon as they get more money in there hands, the government puts them in a higher tax bracket, they get a new house or a new car, there payments on the car are up or if they get a new house, electricity, water, etc. payments go up, adn the only thing they get is a fancy new house or car or so, a load of debt, and bigger monthly payments, and they have no assets to cover all those expenses, so they either keep getting more loaded with debt, or they just live there life in a cycle of debts and payments. and thats the way the rich get richer and the poor and middle class get poorer, now i'm not saying the rich should be taxed more, i'm nmot arguing taxes here, but what i'm saying is that the governemtn should keep it's hands in the basic needs of the individual such as heat, water, electricity, etc. in order to preserve it's democracy, because if the rich get too rich, then the middle class won't count, because when put in comparison with that rich upper class they would be poor. but if the governemnt has it's hands in those basic needs it can take a big chunk of the money that the middle class pays and use it to better there lives with better communication, better electric lines, better cleaner energy resources, and much more rather than have the corporations take a big chunk of the average persons annual income and keep it.

so as you can see in simple form, what i'm saying is the following:

the government should keep it's hands in the basic needs of the average person in order to preserve it's middle calss and not let the rich upper class control the people in a cycle of debt and payments, and that way it will ensure that both the middle class and rich upper class and the poor class get richer and richer on an equal rate. actually the poor and middle class should get wealthier at a faster pace if you wanna actually have a near perfect economy and democracy and society.

i think that's all, yeah, thanks for reading....

I did look at the graph. I don't think it shows anything statistically significant. Income disparity means nothing, basic quality of life means everything. I don't care what the government gives me or doesn't give me, I don't want 60% of my check going to subsidize other peoples dreams. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind doing my part. I want an educated populace, I don't want people dying in the streets, etc. but I don't want the government with their hand in every decision. That's the beauty of the free market system, you fail or succeed on your own merits, and yes, sometimes luck is involved. Some people are born with distinct advantages, but you can't sit around crying about it. And yes, sometimes people fail and they don't have nice shiny things like on television, but everyone gets a chance.
In the United States, you have to have a horrible catastrophe befall you (like Katrinia wiping out your house and insurance refusing to pay etc..) which sucks, but those are the breaks. Or, you are lazy. To "fail" in America is awfully difficult, there are a lot of programs to help people but the respoinsibility lies with the person and not with some government agency to get the help you need.

It may be true, White Chapel, that there is a government agency to help you out of any situation, pretty much as in Oz, but when 90% of the wealth is held by less than 10% of the people there is a problem.

When you can work hard every day of your life and still not have anything at the end of it, there is a problem.

This guy had an interesting epiphany...

Muhammad Yunus of the Grameen Bank...

en.wikipedia.org... and
www.grameen-info.org...
www.gfusa.org...


edit: urls

[edit on 19-7-2006 by HowlrunnerIV]

[edit on 19-7-2006 by HowlrunnerIV]

What do you mean? I'm not the top 10% and I own a house and two cars and have a great family and plenty of friends. When you say "have nothing to show for it"...what does that mean? You want a yacht? A castle? Who needs those things. I'm not sure I understand the gripe. Plus, what good does having things at the end of your life do you anyway? Think you can take it with you? I don't understand how anyone can look at the situation and not see opportunity and success stories everywhere you look. I love America, couldn't imagine being anywhere else, and my family immigrated from Hungary.
Plus, where did you get the figure that 10% of people own 90% of the wealth? I'm not saying its wrong, I'm just curious...plus, I doubt its accurate unless they are counting children in the other 90%.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
It may be true, White Chapel, that there is a government agency to help you out of any situation, pretty much as in Oz, but when 90% of the wealth is held by less than 10% of the people there is a problem.

When you can work hard every day of your life and still not have anything at the end of it, there is a problem.

This guy had an interesting epiphany...

Muhammad Yunus of the Grameen Bank...

en.wikipedia.org... and
www.grameen-info.org...
www.gfusa.org...


edit: urls

[edit on 19-7-2006 by HowlrunnerIV]

[edit on 19-7-2006 by HowlrunnerIV]

Also, to use your source, Bangladesh is an "underdeveloped and overpopulated nation"...so despite their social programs, they aren't gaining any ground. I would submit, that giving people things for free (i.e. the loan program you are referencing) doesn't promote hard work. It promotes further reliance on handouts, which has been proven time and time again to doom an economy that relies on it. Yunus has done some great things, but you can't rely on that to push a country forward. I'll take the system in the good ole USA anyday, the proof is in the pudding over here.

ok look do you own your house, do you own those two cars, or do you still mkae payments on them, do you own any stocks or bonds, do you own real estate. see that 90% or 80% middle and poor class only think they're owning there house and there cars, but they're really only having liabilities that just keep sucking money out of there pockets. see that's the problem of the middle and poor class, they buy luxuries first, like big houses and fancy cars, but they don't own, and i repeat own that is not having a mortgage on, real estate, stocks, bonds, tax lien certificates, anything of value. you see if you only own a car and a house and have it as 90% of your portfalio, you don't own anything, because you basically have 90% of your portfolio as a liability, which means 90% of your portfolio is sucking money out of your pocket in the form of payments to the bank etc. instead of making you money. and that is where the problem is. you see i often hear people saying "our home is our biggest asset" when it isn't,it's a liability, why, because it'ss taking your money form you, rather than making you money. now you can go look up liability and asset out of the dictionary, and have a lesson in confusion, then try to argue with me that my description of liability and asset is wrong but go ahead knock yourself out.

Originally posted by White Chapel
What do you mean? I'm not the top 10% and I own a house and two cars and have a great family and plenty of friends. When you say "have nothing to show for it"...what does that mean? You want a yacht? A castle? Who needs those things. I'm not sure I understand the gripe. Plus, what good does having things at the end of your life do you anyway? Think you can take it with you? I don't understand how anyone can look at the situation and not see opportunity and success stories everywhere you look. I love America, couldn't imagine being anywhere else, and my family immigrated from Hungary.
Plus, where did you get the figure that 10% of people own 90% of the wealth? I'm not saying its wrong, I'm just curious...plus, I doubt its accurate unless they are counting children in the other 90%.

now as for your last post, i understand American people are living very well, but they don't have the same "Standard" of living that many europeans and 3rd world people have, like me i just came from jordan 2 years ago, it's true i'm earning more money, my brother is earning more money, so is my father, but now i'm living in a 1500 sq. ft. -1650 sq.. ft. home, when i used to live in a 2750 sq. ft. - 3000 sq. ft. house, for only about 550 $ a month, when i'm not paying 750$ in mortgage payments right now for this smaller house i'm living in.

also many americans are working longer and harder than most europeans for less or equal money. now you might say success, but i don't think having thousands in debt at the end of your life is success, even though you lived a rich life, with a big house, a fancy car etc. you see it's true you lived with a nice income every month and year, but as long as your working for somebody, especially one of those big corporations, your a slave to the corporation. to me this is the typical success story: "you go to college, get an education, you work for a company for 2-3 years, you learn the bussiness, you get out of the company, you might want to work some more, but work to learn not working for job security or the money, save up a lot of that your making(if you make 70k a year, save 20k-30k a year), all this should be happpening in your 20's, now as soon as you have enough to buy a corporation, you look for a good one, you can buy apartments, or real estate, or anything. or instead of a corporations, buy stocks, bonds, tax lien certificates, some mutual funds, but don't go safe, do your homework, get some help from a good stock broker, but make an interview, find somebody who you can actually trust to know what he-she's talking about, and then you might make 50% a year, who knows if you hit some luck making 100% and 200 % a year, you buy some real estate that will make you money so you have a big base of ASSETS, no liabilities, and in the end, you'll have a big ammount of assets, little or no liabilities, investments that make you money, you can even hiree people that will help you manage your assets, so you don't have to "fix toilets", have to completyely manage inhancement or reestablishment of your real estate, or manage day-today finances, and you'll probably have early retirment guaranteed, and financial independence, and you won't be working all your life for a corporation or a bank to make payments, and you will be living like the rich, because you will pay less taxes, you will ahve a big house a fancy car, no debt, etc...." that's a success story, , and that is what the middle class don't know because they have clouded judgement, they don't realize the possiblities for true success, or rather they don't realize what true success is, and that's what keeps them in the "middle class" and theyre not getting richer, but poorer and loaded with more debt. paying the rich, and missing out on there own opportunitinies, because they're always afraid of the corporation, and afraid that a collection agency will one day knock on thier door.

now lets turn this the other way around, if the government keeps it's hands in the basic needs of the individual, as i said before the poor and middle class will get richer, while the rich don't get too rich, now that might slow the economy for 3-5 years, but long-term you'll have better growth. and the people will lighten up, why because they will know that there are many ways the government is protection there rights and giving them ways to improve. and they will find out the way to true success.

ok now i'm losing track of what my first point was, but here's what i will conclude with:

the governemtn should keep it's hands in the basic needs of the individual, in order to preserve there rights, nad in sure that they have a straight path to true success, without having to be a slave to the corporation all thier life, and in the end living a life without substantial debt. and this way the corporations won't be too powerful, and sooner or later you'll have an unaccountable poor class, a great substantial middle class that will be closer to the rich than the poor, and a rich class that won't be too powerful. basically a perfect blend of capitalism and socialism, a perfect democracy, and a near perfect society in terms of economics and rights and freedom.

Originally posted by White Chapel
What do you mean? I'm not the top 10% and I own a house and two cars...

Who said anything about taking it with you? I intend to leave it for my sons.

And when I say "have nothing to show for it" I mean "have nothing to show for it." When he died, Sir Michael Caine's father had exactly 7p in his pocket. He had worked hard all his life and owned nothing.

I'll admit the 10/90% figure is "generally accepted", it is, however, proveable and given a little time I'll find a source for it. As for who's counted, everybody. 90% of the wealth is owned by 10% of the people. When you're that rich you have trust funds that belong to you the day you are born. Whereas the rest of us have to wait until we open our first bank accounts and try saving our pocket money.

My mother "owns" two units, a beach house and a Land Rover Discovery.

I own a Honda CM 250, a GL 400, a CB750F, a CB900F Bol d'Or and a Suzuki SX 200. Not one of them cost more that $650 and not one of them is newer than 1986.

I have to pay rent for my house, mum is paying three mortgages and a car loan.

Banks lend millions to people who don't need it, but won't lend thousands to people who are desparate.

As for looking at the situation, I've looked, and I see millions of people being left behind. Where are their opportunities? Their successes?

As for my source, you clearly misunderstood everything about Grameen and its founder. He isn't giving anybody anything, except their dignity. He lends you the money and you have to pay it back.

The whole point of Grameen is that it isn't aid money, it's busniness capital lent by a bank. Lent and repayable. Grameen quote a bad debt ratio of 1%, which means 99% of loans are repaid.

Uber-success story Donald Trump couldn't repay his loans, but destitute Bangladeshis earning $1 a day can repay theirs.

One thing you said, however, is true, giving people things for free encourages reliance and Grameen proves it, by not giving anything for free.

We must live in different places, I live in Chicago and see success stories everywhere. I work in higher ed so I guess I see motivated people all the time. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree because we must have very different definitions of success.
To me, success isn't in owning material things but more in the safety and security of my friends and family and in the relaltionships I'm able to develop over the years. Having a mortgage or not, having a car payment or not, really doesn't matter to me. It's not something i consider successful. Now being able to feed and clothe my family, and my children being able to steer there own course are things I find valuable and I find those in abundance in the US.

Originally posted by INc2006
now lets turn this the other way around, if the government keeps it's hands in the basic needs of the individual, as i said before the poor and middle class will get richer, while the rich don't get too rich, now that might slow the economy for 3-5 years, but long-term you'll have better growth. and the people will lighten up, why because they will know that there are many ways the government is protection there rights and giving them ways to improve. and they will find out the way to true success.

ok now i'm losing track of what my first point was, but here's what i will conclude with:

the governemtn should keep it's hands in the basic needs of the individual, in order to preserve there rights, nad in sure that they have a straight path to true success, without having to be a slave to the corporation all thier life, and in the end living a life without substantial debt. and this way the corporations won't be too powerful, and sooner or later you'll have an unaccountable poor class, a great substantial middle class that will be closer to the rich than the poor, and a rich class that won't be too powerful. basically a perfect blend of capitalism and socialism, a perfect democracy, and a near perfect society in terms of economics and rights and freedom.

I don't want the government doing this though, I want the cream to rise to the top, I don't want the governments hand in any sort of wealth redistribution.

Originally posted by INc2006

now as for your last post, i understand American people are living very well, but they don't have the same "Standard" of living that many europeans and 3rd world people have, like me i just came from jordan 2 years ago, it's true i'm earning more money, my brother is earning more money, so is my father, but now i'm living in a 1500 sq. ft. -1650 sq.. ft. home, when i used to live in a 2750 sq. ft. - 3000 sq. ft. house, for only about 550 $ a month, when i'm not paying 750$ in mortgage payments right now for this smaller house i'm living in.

also many americans are working longer and harder than most europeans for less or equal money. now you might say success, but i don't think having thousands in debt at the end of your life is success, even though you lived a rich life, with a big house, a fancy car etc. you see it's true you lived with a nice income every month and year, but as long as your working for somebody, especially one of those big corporations, your a slave to the corporation. to me this is the typical success story: "you go to college, get an education, you work for a company for 2-3 years, you learn the bussiness, you get out of the company, you might want to work some more, but work to learn not working for job security or the money, save up a lot of that your making(if you make 70k a year, save 20k-30k a year), all this should be happpening in your 20's, now as soon as you have enough to buy a corporation, you look for a good one, you can buy apartments, or real estate, or anything. or instead of a corporations, buy stocks, bonds, tax lien certificates, some mutual funds, but don't go safe, do your homework, get some help from a good stock broker, but make an interview, find somebody who you can actually trust to know what he-she's talking about, and then you might make 50% a year, who knows if you hit some luck making 100% and 200 % a year, you buy some real estate that will make you money so you have a big base of ASSETS, no liabilities, and in the end, you'll have a big ammount of assets, little or no liabilities, investments that make you money, you can even hiree people that will help you manage your assets, so you don't have to "fix toilets", have to completyely manage inhancement or reestablishment of your real estate, or manage day-today finances, and you'll probably have early retirment guaranteed, and financial independence, and you won't be working all your life for a corporation or a bank to make payments, and you will be living like the rich, because you will pay less taxes, you will ahve a big house a fancy car, no debt, etc...." that's a success story, , and that is what the middle class don't know because they have clouded judgement, they don't realize the possiblities for true success, or rather they don't realize what true success is, and that's what keeps them in the "middle class" and theyre not getting richer, but poorer and loaded with more debt. paying the rich, and missing out on there own opportunitinies, because they're always afraid of the corporation, and afraid that a collection agency will one day knock on thier door.

Okay, you mentioned you moved from Jordan. Why did you come here? Why not go to Europe like you mentioned is better, or back to Jordan? Serious question, I'm not trying to be a smartass or anything.
Why would someone be afraid of a collection agency? You don't act irresonsibily and that's not something you need to worry about. I honestly don't understand you're gripe, you have this whole ideal future mapped out and if it doesn't go exactly that way then the standard of living is bad? I'm really confused what your problem with the US is.

Originally posted by White Chapel
I don't think you can make the assumption the the gap in income means that the lower 80% have a lower quality of life than they did 20 years ago.

They do , it's a fact. Real income ( buying power) for American workers have been declining since the late 70's.

All it really means is that the top people are making more money, and there's nothing wrong with that.

All it really means is that American workers are working ever harder ( they now work the most hours in the industrialized world) to try reach the buying power they had 2 decades ago. Where do you think the 'angry white male' syndrome comes from ?

I would prefer the US system to any socialist or fascist system out there that tries to equalize everyone.

The US system is impoverishing 90% of Americans by most standards you can employ.

Quality of life is tough to measure, but some people try. The Economist has an index and the US ranks 13th in the world, I'm not sure I buy the reliability of the index since Ireland is first, I like Ireland but I wouldn't call it the best quality of life.

What exactly is your objection to those standards?

It also notes that the US has the number 2 GDP per person in the world. You can see it here:
The Economist quality of life index

Per capita income ( derived from GDP )is a absolutely worthless standard for wealth in my opinion as it assumes general income equality. Since that is not true for the USA it's very nearly completely meaningless and is so for most countries.

There is also the United Nations Human Development Index which has the United States 10th, but all the top countries are bunch together essentially. You can find it here:

Human Development Index

Should the US not be far ahead considering it's relative advantages and massive GDP? Where is all that 'wealth' ?

If you look at the historical data, the US has actually improved since 1990 (which is the oldest I could find, although I do know that Switzerland was the leader in 1980) so I'm not sure your conclusions really hold water.

As if being mentioned on this index in any place but first should even be brought up by a smart American!

The truth is life gets better for every first world country as the years go by.

It's been getting worse for Americans for a few decades now.

The air gets cleaner, people live longer, people get wealthier, more diseases are cured. With all due respect, I think your post is innacurate.

The air is getting dirtier but is living longer at a very very reduced standard of living really what Americans deserve? Only a few Americans are getting wealthier ( and their normally involved in stealing from the rest of Americans) and life style/poverty induced diseases are on the increase.

Since you're in high school, I will forgive you for not knowing. I don't believe there are any federal toll roads, I believe the states decide whether to put up a toll road. The federal government, I believe, has followed precedent set by President Monroe in 1822 to not charge for federal road use (someone correct me if I'm wrong, this may have changed or be changing in the future). If you use a toll road to get to work, you can also deduct it from your taxes.

The American government have in the last few years sold thousands ( or leased ; i forget ) of miles of highways to foreign countries and multinationals. The logic is supposedly that if they are willing to accept American dollars someone should provide them with something to buy... How much of America's city water supplies are still in American hands?

Plenty of farmers that can't make a living because the price of produce is so low exist on federal subsidies, otherwise people wouldn't be able to afford to grow all the food we shove in to our pie holes.

Complete and utter NONSENSE and i read a lot of nonsense on any given day. There are few ( non as i recall ) countries that give larger subsidies to their agri business and in the USA it's on the order of 24% of the value of agri produce. South African farmers do not even get 5% as i recall so if American farmers can not make it it's because their completely incompetent which ain't true as far as i know. The reason prices is so low is because the American tax payer is basically destroying the price structure by massively subsidising it. This is obviously a great economic tool for the American government when they use this cheap food to massively disrupt economies wherever they choose.

I also suggest you look up PELL grants and SEOG grants, those are federal student grants given to people who need them for education. They are completely free, you don't pay them back.

The average American student is still about 15 000 + in depth when their done and their now reducing the grant levels.

www.cnn.com...

Do you see a trend yet?

The federal loans you are referencing are also a great deal though, as the interest rate is much lower than market value and you don't pay them back until 6 months after you graduate. Some of them even have the interest subsidized, which means you don't accrue interest on your loan, making it essentially free money (the concept of what is more valuable, a dollar today or a dollar tomorrow?).

The way the dollar is losing value this is probably true....

In addition to the those programs, many states also subsidize education. For instance, I live in Illinois and every full time college student gets whats called the Illinois MAP grant for college. It gives every student $5000 each to go to school, absolutely free, as in no paying back.

It's apparently not enough and it could be so much more considering how 'rich' Americans still think their country is.

I can't believe I even have to mention it, but the US government is also the worlds largest employer, keeping all those people in jobs. They in turn make money and spend money on houses, boats, cars, etc. which keeps the economy running. That's your taxes dollars at work as well.

The only thing that keeps the US economy running is MASSIVE taxpayer subsidy. Look at the GDP growth rate and then look at the federal depth increase. Coincidence? Without cheap imports from virtual slave states there would be even less of an economy to talk about.

I too think corporations should be paying more taxes, but rewarding them for research and development is exactly what you need to be doing in a free market economy.

Most of the top American corporations in fact get massive tax rebates ( meaning they GET money from the federal government- meaning you) so their not only ripping YOU off but your PAYING them to do so. Why should they be get money from YOU so they can make even more profit than they already do ; mostly at your expense? It's completely insane....


[edit on 21-7-2006 by StellarX]

I'd much rather Pfizer spends their money on developing a cure for cancer than paying taxes.

Cancer is a life style disease that can easily be dealt with if you did some research. Paying someone else to kill you ( which is what chemo and the likes does) is once again completely insane. They spend more money on advertising their products than researching new one's which is strangely once again tax deductible; you pay them to lie to you.

I don't believe in an income tax anyway, but that's a seperate post.

Would be interesting to see how that worked out.

I don't mean this insultingly but I think you have a little bit more living and learning to do before you make assumptions about the US vs. other tax systems. It's the largest economy and the only superpower in the world, it has to be doing something right.

America is a great country but do not kid yourself with the 'superpower' thing as that hasn't been true for some decades now. America has weapons but they have long been superseded by far more dangerous types that America strangely does NOT deploy.

Stellar

ok you want to know why i moved from jordan, fine, my father sent my brother to UNT, a big university in Texas, my brother flunked, and my dad of course didn't wnt my brother to mess up his life, so we had to move here in order to insure that my brother stays in college and finishes a respectable education. i was actually living much better as i said, a bigger house, more money, and the money bought more, i mean 50 cents here don't buy you anything, while overthere 50 cents would equal about 35 jordanian cents, and that would get me a coke and a candy bar. so it isn't because of economic opportunity that i moved here, it was just because my father wanted to isure my brothers future.

I couldn't disagree more with your conclusions. I'd love to see a source on your opinions.
One problem I think we are having is some people are associating "quality of life" strictly with income, as most of your post had to do with earning power.

Life has not been getting worse for Americans, source please. I see absolutely no evidence that there has been a gradual trend downward for Americans. Every generation of people in every time period ever always crow "Back in such and such a year, everything was so much better" there is no evidence that this is true.
Do people work hard? Yes, but I have no objection to that. I like to work hard and don't mind it.

I'm not sure what your post about highways being sold has to do with toll roads?

I know firsthand for a fact that where I grew up (Nebraska) corn and soy farmers could not survive without subsidies. I'm glad other countries can, good for them, maybe they can pick up our slack then if they are so happy and efficient with their super low cost of living.

Look, is America perfect? Of course not, nothing is, but to hear people wine on and on about how everything is so much better some place else is getting tiresome. It's not, and I've lived a few places both around the country and on foreign soil in my life, and know first hand that if America isn't number one, it's at worst top 5. Which isn't too bad given the melting pot of cultures and ideas we have, there's a lot of freedom we have here, freedom people take for granted when they know nothing else. I'm always reminded of an old saying when discussions like this take place "the grass is always greener...."

i'm not associating quality of life strictly with income, now all i'm saying is that when you have a good standing currency, not too inflated, a moderate currency like the Jordanian dinar, quality of life, or the standard of living is higher or either has the potential to be higher. now i''m saying that people are living worse than before because first of all, the average debt per person in the US is about 6000 dollars, and that is only credit card debt, excluding mortgage and car payment, etc. people are getting loaded with debt and are not getting any richer, they keep working for a propmotion or a raise, but as soon as that raise or promotion comes in, they start spending more, and the government puts them in a higher tax bracket, so in the end they still don't have much money at the end of the year. while before peope used to earn more, and the dollar was better, for instance doctors, accountants, and other proffessionals used to earna lot more money 20 years ago than now. see most people here are living alright but that's whats cluding their view, they are not seeing that the standard of living is falling, and that the chance for true success is falling too, you see the merit of Capitalism is personal enterprise and entreuprenurship(sorry about the spelling), now when many people are going for jobs in large corporations, and working everyday to mkae the corporation richer, the bank richer, and then working from january to may for the government paying taxes, there's a problem, why because the people are getting too dependent on corporate jobs, and are not going for personal enterprise, and when that happens the Corporation becomes much too powerful and controlling of the individual corporate workers life. you see i read some stuff about new world order and all, i mean if that stuff is real this is exactly how its gonna happen, the peope keep working for the corporation, unrealizing that they are becoming more and more of a slave for the bank, the corporation, and the government, because at the end of the year they're barely having anything left over, you see they work from january to may for the government, maybe another 3-4 months to make the banks and mortgage payments, and working the resdstr for the corporation paying the heat, electric, etc. bills, and of course to the company theyre working in.