Do you think America is doomed, or that it hit a bump in it's progression as a nation? - General

[QUOTE=King Tiger;37117638]I'm don't think I'm properly understanding you. Do you think poor people going hungry is a good thing?[/QUOTE] oh, I miss phrased my first post. I meant spending is good for the economy, so not spending (which a larger sales tax would encourage) would hurt the economy.

[QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;37119965]Not a huge amount, remember that the only people we are really income taxing are the middle class, as much of the lower class either get tax reduction or don't pay them at all because they have an illegal job and have no official income, while most of the rich don't pay many taxes because they have a bunch of bullshit tax loopholes they exploit. If we implemented a 12% income tax on all non-essential goods, It wouldn't be that bad, seriously, it's only an extra 12 bucks out of every 100, and the government would finally have enough money to get shit done. it's just fair. [editline]7th August 2012[/editline] Key words: [i]Except for necessities, like food and water[/i]. Those don't get taxed, only non-essential goods, like dragon dildoes or a flatscreen TV.[/QUOTE] Alright, that makes more sense but the system still sounds ridiculous and give the wealthy an enormous advantage.

[QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;37119965]Not a huge amount, remember that the only people we are really income taxing are the middle class, as much of the lower class either get tax reduction or don't pay them at all because they have an illegal job and have no official income, while most of the rich don't pay many taxes because they have a bunch of bullshit tax loopholes they exploit. If we implemented a 12% income tax on all non-essential goods, It wouldn't be that bad, seriously, it's only an extra 12 bucks out of every 100, and the government would finally have enough money to get shit done. it's just fair. [editline]7th August 2012[/editline] Key words: [i]Except for necessities, like food and water[/i]. Those don't get taxed, only non-essential goods, like dragon dildoes or a flatscreen TV.[/QUOTE] I don't understand why everyone who isn't rich seems to think almost no wealthy person ever pays taxes because of "numerous loopholes". It's something constantly regurgitated and as far as I know has no factual basis. If you're making an income, you get taxed on it. Even stock trading gets taxed. I would love to see a factual example of one of these loopholes.

[QUOTE=ice445;37131383]I don't understand why everyone who isn't rich seems to think almost no wealthy person ever pays taxes because of "numerous loopholes". It's something constantly regurgitated and as far as I know has no factual basis. If you're making an income, you get taxed on it. Even stock trading gets taxed. I would love to see a factual example of one of these loopholes.[/QUOTE] When did I says anything about loopholes? When did I mention rich people not paying taxes?

[QUOTE=King Tiger;37131414]When did I says anything about loopholes? When did I mention rich people not paying taxes?[/QUOTE] he was referring to wealth + taste, who believes the rich don't pay taxes.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37131474]he was referring to wealth + taste, who believes the rich don't pay taxes.[/QUOTE] There are some super-rich people who can get through loopholes and pay severely reduced taxes. [editline]8th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=King Tiger;37121843]Alright, that makes more sense but the system still sounds ridiculous and give the wealthy an enormous advantage.[/QUOTE] What the hell do you mean? If a poor man spends $50 on some porno magazines and that's the only non-essential items he buys in that period, the only taxes he'll have to pay are on those magazines. Whereas a rich man who spends $50,000 on an expensive sailboat will have to pay a lot more taxes than the poor man, simply because he's spending more. It's more fair because now everyone pays taxes because everyone buys goods.

[QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;37136246]There are some super-rich people who can get through loopholes and pay severely reduced taxes. [editline]8th August 2012[/editline] What the hell do you mean? If a poor man spends $50 on some porno magazines and that's the only non-essential items he buys in that period, the only taxes he'll have to pay are on those magazines. Whereas a rich man who spends $50,000 on an expensive sailboat will have to pay a lot more taxes than the poor man, simply because he's spending more. It's more fair because now everyone pays taxes because everyone buys goods.[/QUOTE] but it's also bad because it discourages spending. How about a flat tax rate, with no exemptions. The best part about flat tax rates is that individuals wouldn't even really need to pay taxes, because their employer could pay it instead.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37137652]but it's also bad because it discourages spending. How about a flat tax rate, with no exemptions. The best part about flat tax rates is that individuals wouldn't even really need to pay taxes, because their employer could pay it instead.[/QUOTE] How does that discourage spending? I'm not saying it would be a massive 30 percent tax, maybe something like 8-12%. In GA you have to pay 7% so it's not really that over-the-top. And taxing the employer is stupid. That discourages hiring people, which is what we really don't want. If we start taxing employers for having employees then why would they want to hire anyone? It would be too expensive for businesses to maintain.

[QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;37139578]How does that discourage spending? I'm not saying it would be a massive 30 percent tax, maybe something like 8-12%. In GA you have to pay 7% so it's not really that over-the-top. And taxing the employer is stupid. That discourages hiring people, which is what we really don't want. If we start taxing employers for having employees then why would they want to hire anyone? It would be too expensive for businesses to maintain.[/QUOTE] An 8-12% tax added to the state tax would make a total sales tax of 15-19%. That's pretty big. And it discourages spending because it makes things more expensive. And how would taxing the employer discourage hiring? you do realize all money that an employee makes, including the money they have to pay as taxes, comes from their employer. The employer always pays the tax in the end, the only difference is if they have to physically send the check to the IRS. If employers had to pay the tax, they would simply pay their employees less. But since the employees no longer have to file taxes, the employees still end up with the same amount of money at the end. [editline]8th August 2012[/editline] Let me give you an example. Let's say your a sales clerk, and your boss pays you $20,000 a year. To make the math simple, there is a 10% income tax and a 0% payroll tax. So your boss pays a total of $20,000, the government makes $2,000, and you make $18,000. Now, let's remove the income tax, and replace it with a 10% payroll withholding tax (a withholding tax is taken out from the employee's salary, not added on top). The employer still pays $20,000, but he has to withhold $2000 of it and give it to the government. The employee still gets $18,000 in the end, but he doesn't have to deal with the hassle of filing tax returns.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37144134]An 8-12% tax added to the state tax would make a total sales tax of 15-19%. That's pretty big. And it discourages spending because it makes things more expensive. And how would taxing the employer discourage hiring? you do realize all money that an employee makes, including the money they have to pay as taxes, comes from their employer. The employer always pays the tax in the end, the only difference is if they have to physically send the check to the IRS. If employers had to pay the tax, they would simply pay their employees less. But since the employees no longer have to file taxes, the employees still end up with the same amount of money at the end. [editline]8th August 2012[/editline] Let me give you an example. Let's say your a sales clerk, and your boss pays you $20,000 a year. To make the math simple, there is a 10% income tax and a 0% payroll tax. So your boss pays a total of $20,000, the government makes $2,000, and you make $18,000. Now, let's remove the income tax, and replace it with a 10% payroll withholding tax (a withholding tax is taken out from the employee's salary, not added on top). The employer still pays $20,000, but he has to withhold $2000 of it and give it to the government. The employee still gets $18,000 in the end, but he doesn't have to deal with the hassle of filing tax returns.[/QUOTE] Yeah, but what i'm getting to is that with no income tax, you'd have more money to spend in the first place. Let's say you get $10,000 bucks a month just for the analogy's sake. That means you make $120,000 bucks a year, which puts you in the 25% tax bracket. That leaves you with $90,000 to spend a year after Uncle Sam gets his share. However, with fairtax, if you make $120,000 a year, you get all that money to spend, with about a 16% sales tax with combined federal and state. And not all of your $120,000 is going to be spent on non-essential goods with the tax on it. A lot will be spent on food, water, and bills, and some of it will go to savings. In the end, the consumer saves a big chunk of money, while the government gets more taxes, seeing as everyone is now paying a sales tax, even tourists. Everybody wins.

[QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;37144575]Yeah, but what i'm getting to is that with no income tax, you'd have more money to spend in the first place. Let's say you get $10,000 bucks a month just for the analogy's sake. That means you make $120,000 bucks a year, which puts you in the 25% tax bracket. That leaves you with $90,000 to spend a year after Uncle Sam gets his share. However, with fairtax, if you make $120,000 a year, you get all that money to spend, with about a 16% sales tax with combined federal and state. And not all of your $120,000 is going to be spent on non-essential goods with the tax on it. A lot will be spent on food, water, and bills, and some of it will go to savings. In the end, the consumer saves a big chunk of money, while the government gets more taxes, seeing as everyone is now paying a sales tax, even tourists. Everybody wins.[/QUOTE] Yes, people will save a lot of money. But the idea that the Fed will make more money is ridiculous. First, not all of the 16% goes to the federal government, they only get 9% (assuming the state gets 7%). now which will make the fed more money? a 7% tax, or a 25% tax? obviously, the 25% tax. And the whole "everyone is now paying sales tax" argument is wonk. Everyone pays taxes. The rich find loopholes, but they can't get a 100% write-off. Even then, most of a rich person's money is not spent on items, but invested. Since a sales tax does not affect investment, the sales tax would not cover a large portion of their income. So your fairtax system would drastically reduce revenue. [editline]8th August 2012[/editline] And I looked into the actual fairtax proposal. It's a 23% withholding tax, which would be equivalent to a 30% traditional sales tax. Add a 7% state sales tax, and you have a total of 37% tax on items.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37144757]Yes, people will save a lot of money. But the idea that the Fed will make more money is ridiculous. First, not all of the 16% goes to the federal government, they only get 9% (assuming the state gets 7%). now which will make the fed more money? a 7% tax, or a 25% tax? obviously, the 25% tax. And the whole "everyone is now paying sales tax" argument is wonk. Everyone pays taxes. The rich find loopholes, but they can't get a 100% write-off. Even then, most of a rich person's money is not spent on items, but invested. Since a sales tax does not affect investment, the sales tax would not cover a large portion of their income. So your fairtax system would drastically reduce revenue.[/QUOTE] Well the state wouldn't tax 25% because that's incredibly high and people would be in public outrage about it. The highest I could see them going is 15%, and even then I'm not sure. I still think the sales tax would generate as much revenue at least and probably more. Think of all the people with no official job, illegal jobs, whatever. I'd hazard to guess that 5% of the population at least have illegal or undeclared jobs. Now they are paying taxes, the rich no longer have any loopholes and they pay a lot of taxes because they're big spenders. On top of that, all of the kids who don't have jobs now pay sales tax when they buy candy, video games, movies, etc. as well as all of the tourists and illegal immigrants. All of that combined gives the state a lot of money and it's a lot more fair for everyone involved. [editline]8th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37144757] And I looked into the actual fairtax proposal. It's a 23% withholding tax, which would be equivalent to a 30% traditional sales tax. Add a 7% state sales tax, and you have a total of 37% tax on items.[/QUOTE] Yeah that might need a little tweaking. I'm just down with dropping income tax and having a lower sales tax, 23% seems a tad ridiculous.

[QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;37144798]Well the state wouldn't tax 25% because that's incredibly high and people would be in public outrage about it. The highest I could see them going is 15%, and even then I'm not sure. I still think the sales tax would generate as much revenue at least and probably more. Think of all the people with no official job, illegal jobs, whatever. I'd hazard to guess that 5% of the population at least have illegal or undeclared jobs. Now they are paying taxes, the rich no longer have any loopholes and they pay a lot of taxes because they're big spenders. On top of that, all of the kids who don't have jobs now pay sales tax when they buy candy, video games, movies, etc. as well as all of the tourists and illegal immigrants. All of that combined gives the state a lot of money and it's a lot more fair for everyone involved. [editline]8th August 2012[/editline] Yeah that might need a little tweaking. I'm just down with dropping income tax and having a lower sales tax, 23% seems a tad ridiculous.[/QUOTE] people with no official jobs or illegal jobs rarely make much money anyways. And as I said, the rich, even with all their loopholes, pay more than 9%. and you do realize they proposed the 30% tax because any less wouldn't provide the needed revenue.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37144906]people with no official jobs or illegal jobs rarely make much money anyways. And as I said, the rich, even with all their loopholes, pay more than 9%. and you do realize they proposed the 30% tax because any less wouldn't provide the needed revenue.[/QUOTE] Tell that to the more profitable drug dealers, who have no official income but still buy a shitload of goods. And still there's the fact that EVERYONE who buys goods in the U.S now pays taxes, including illegals, criminals, kids, seniors, etc.

[QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;37145019]Tell that to the more profitable drug dealers, who have no official income but still buy a shitload of goods. And still there's the fact that EVERYONE who buys goods in the U.S now pays taxes, including illegals, criminals, kids, seniors, etc.[/QUOTE] and what about illegal/unofficial businesses that don't charge a sales tax? I doubt the drug dealers are collecting a sales tax. And kids get their money from parents, who pay an income tax. But the point is, the whole "more people would pay taxes" argument is bunk, because there will always be tax evaders. What is true is that sales tax only taxes consumption, not the entire income. So even if the choice was between a 9% sales tax and a 9% income tax, the income tax would bring in significantly more money. [editline]8th August 2012[/editline] An example: California has a sales tax of 7.25%, and a progressive sales tax with the highest bracket being 9.3%. California made 49.9 billion from income tax in 2005-06, but only made 27.6 billion from sales tax. Obviously, replacing the income tax with a lower sales tax would not increase revenue at all. [URL="http://www.lao.ca.gov/2007/tax_primer/tax_primer_040907.aspx#overview"]http://www.lao.ca.gov/2007/tax_primer/tax_primer_040907.aspx#overview[/URL]

Not doomed but America is like UK. They have been on the top for so long and now is the time to let someone else come along and be the "champion". (Even though America is everyone, it's probably going to end in their standards soon)

[QUOTE=Torjuz;37163134]Not doomed but America is like UK. They have been on the top for so long and now is the time to let someone else come along and be the "champion". (Even though America is everyone, it's probably going to end in their standards soon)[/QUOTE] what do you mean it's time? I think America's going to stay for a while.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37098811]I didn't say America was inefficient, I said it would become inefficient if we put protectionist policies in effect. Your argument about South America's growth rates is interesting, I'll need to look more into it. I still don't see why you think India's economy was skyrocketing before liberalization, the data clearly contradicts that. I also argue with the whole "oligarchs can't use money as wisely and the state" idea. Governments are infamous for being bad at managing money. I'll also need to look more into the World Bank. And focusing on the US's comparative advantage doesn't mean giving up on new technologies. First off all, innovation pretty much is US's comparative advantage. We have invented so much stuff, it's crazy. Plus, it's not about focusing on what you are best at (established technologies) but what you are better at relative to other countries. Finally, comparative advantage is not some steadfast rule. But if you do produce something you aren't good at producing, you better improve quickly. I ignored you statements about the Chinese economy so I could focus on America's economy, the original debate. And it's better to ignore a statement than use nonsense to "refute" it. Can you please elaborate on how state intervention and reduction of corporate power would help the economy or the people? I see no need for state intervention. [editline]5th August 2012[/editline] so? we are still at the top of the world in pretty much every measurable way. We have the strongest economy, strongest military, best athletes, and invented most modern conveniences. I think you're just jealous.[/QUOTE] Sorry if my replies are slow, I'm in the army right now so I can only get on FP on the weekends. What I meant was that India's economic growth rate was beginning to skyrocket before liberalisation as shown by your data. Governments are not infamous for managing money unwisely, however, it seems you took a more extreme version like the Soviet Union, which of course did not function. I mean that state intervention has been used effectively numerous times. We'll take Nokia as an example, the Finnish government subsidised its electronics department for 17 years before it even made a profit, then it became the largest mobile phone manufacturer in the world. It probably would not have achieved that without state intervention because some company like AT&T or whatever would have bought it. That subsidisation brought economic growth and jobs to Finland. Or we can look at South Korea when the state introduced five year plans which boosted the industrial side of the economy greatly. Innovation [B]was[/B] the US' comparative advantage. The US used to fund R&D heavily and now the government has a very small role in it which has been detrimental to the US economy and US inventiveness. Of course you better improve quickly and that is what countries can do when the government helps. I used the Chinese economy to back up my claims. Corporations are infamous for caring more about themselves than the people which is natural since they are profit driven. However, those corporations can actually do better in the long run if they help the people. Just look at shareholder value maximisation, it doesn't do shit for anyone in the long run and especially not for average people, but it gives a lot of money in the short run which is detrimental to economic growth. When is the last time a corporation actually did something amazing without government help?

I think a large part of the issues in the United States stems from our "minority" system. Let's say this; The "minority" system works as follows: The nation is built up of a bunch of minorities, which are not allowed to be discriminated against by the law and the Constitution. However, it is the largest minority who will choose the laws, based on their beliefs. Used to, the nation was comprised of less viral and large minorities, and the media wasn't such a profound thing. A very large majority would take over, and laws would be made then that would now be considered discriminatory and immoral/wrong. Yet, that was how things worked then, and it seemed to do fine. Now, however, there are much more people in the US; And the more people, the more minorities. The more minorities, the less laws you can make. The less laws you can make, the more other minorities complain that the laws they want aren't being implemented. This is where the whole "you can't please everyone" part of it comes in. Except, it is now at a more "extreme" level, for lack of a better word. Basing upon our constitution/current laws, we are not allowing to selectively target minority groups and etc for our laws. In the cases that we can, the media will viscously attack the Gov't and their supporters, as well as the fact that the "minority", which happens to be rather large anyways, would also throw outcries and protests towards the opposing sides. I feel that this really cripples the way our nation works, and is what is causing a lot of problems. Our Government is afraid of its own media. Instead of the Government being the ones watching our every move, I feel we may be trapped in our own cage of Social "correctness". (Or political correctness, which is just another factor to the whole "minority" system.) I'm kind of rambling here, and this is my first post here, so please forgive me if I seem stupid.

[QUOTE=Hat in a Cat;37210412]I think a large part of the issues in the United States stems from our "minority" system. Let's say this; The "minority" system works as follows: The nation is built up of a bunch of minorities, which are not allowed to be discriminated against by the law and the Constitution. However, it is the largest minority who will choose the laws, based on their beliefs. Used to, the nation was comprised of less viral and large minorities, and the media wasn't such a profound thing. A very large majority would take over, and laws would be made then that would now be considered discriminatory and immoral/wrong. Yet, that was how things worked then, and it seemed to do fine. Now, however, there are much more people in the US; And the more people, the more minorities. The more minorities, the less laws you can make. The less laws you can make, the more other minorities complain that the laws they want aren't being implemented. This is where the whole "you can't please everyone" part of it comes in. Except, it is now at a more "extreme" level, for lack of a better word. Basing upon our constitution/current laws, we are not allowing to selectively target minority groups and etc for our laws. In the cases that we can, the media will viscously attack the Gov't and their supporters, as well as the fact that the "minority", which happens to be rather large anyways, would also throw outcries and protests towards the opposing sides. I feel that this really cripples the way our nation works, and is what is causing a lot of problems. Our Government is afraid of its own media. Instead of the Government being the ones watching our every move, I feel we may be trapped in our own cage of Social "correctness". (Or political correctness, which is just another factor to the whole "minority" system.) I'm kind of rambling here, and this is my first post here, so please forgive me if I seem stupid.[/QUOTE] Are you talking about ethnic or political minorities?

[QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;37119965]Not a huge amount, remember that the only people we are really income taxing are the middle class, as much of the lower class either get tax reduction or don't pay them at all because they have an illegal job and have no official income, while most of the rich don't pay many taxes because they have a bunch of bullshit tax loopholes they exploit. If we implemented a 12% income tax on all non-essential goods, It wouldn't be that bad, seriously, it's only an extra 12 bucks out of every 100, and the government would finally have enough money to get shit done. it's just fair. [editline]7th August 2012[/editline] Key words: [i]Except for necessities, like food and water[/i]. Those don't get taxed, only non-essential goods, like dragon dildoes or a flatscreen TV.[/QUOTE] There is a huge side effect of this in that ONLY rich people would be able to afford these things now. This would effectively limit luxury items to really really rich people.

[QUOTE=Hat in a Cat;37210412]I think a large part of the issues in the United States stems from our "minority" system. Let's say this; The "minority" system works as follows: The nation is built up of a bunch of minorities, which are not allowed to be discriminated against by the law and the Constitution. However, it is the largest minority who will choose the laws, based on their beliefs. Used to, the nation was comprised of less viral and large minorities, and the media wasn't such a profound thing. A very large majority would take over, and laws would be made then that would now be considered discriminatory and immoral/wrong. Yet, that was how things worked then, and it seemed to do fine. Now, however, there are much more people in the US; And the more people, the more minorities. The more minorities, the less laws you can make. The less laws you can make, the more other minorities complain that the laws they want aren't being implemented. This is where the whole "you can't please everyone" part of it comes in. Except, it is now at a more "extreme" level, for lack of a better word. Basing upon our constitution/current laws, we are not allowing to selectively target minority groups and etc for our laws. In the cases that we can, the media will viscously attack the Gov't and their supporters, as well as the fact that the "minority", which happens to be rather large anyways, would also throw outcries and protests towards the opposing sides. I feel that this really cripples the way our nation works, and is what is causing a lot of problems. Our Government is afraid of its own media. Instead of the Government being the ones watching our every move, I feel we may be trapped in our own cage of Social "correctness". (Or political correctness, which is just another factor to the whole "minority" system.) I'm kind of rambling here, and this is my first post here, so please forgive me if I seem stupid.[/QUOTE] what? not being allowed to selectively target minorities is a bad thing? and since when should the government be watching our every move? The government should be afraid of it's media, and it's people. And yes, our system does have a lot of complaining. But I rather have everyone complain a little than have one group have all the power.

the american economy should grow since it just had a recession, but it could get fucked by its quantitative easing

Food for thought. Extracted from this article: [url]http://artefact.mi2.hr/_a02/lang_en/art_wrange_en.htm[/url] [quote]The old Swedish model seems ... to have become incorporated in and transferred to the new political landscape, which is more influenced by lobbyism and medialization .... Both lobbyism and opinion formation are on the other hand forms of participation that even single individuals can exploit regardless of the actions of other individuals –Demokratiutredningen (a report on democracy commissioned by the Swedish Government) [/quote]

[QUOTE=King Tiger;37211363]Are you talking about ethnic or political minorities?[/QUOTE] I'm talking about both, basically. All forms of minorities, because broken down it's about the same thing with different base ideals. [editline]13th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37212553]what? not being allowed to selectively target minorities is a bad thing? and since when should the government be watching our every move? The government should be afraid of it's media, and it's people. And yes, our system does have a lot of complaining. But I rather have everyone complain a little than have one group have all the power.[/QUOTE] The thing is, I never said it was a [I]bad[/I] thing for us not being allowed to target minorities. I even think it's a good thing. However, the more people in our country and the larger it is, the less it's going to be able to function as it does right now. Believe me, the ideals that the country was founded upon are great, and showed a big leap from the stuff that was going on at the time. I just don't think that this country will be able to function very well at its current way of handling minorities and people's differing opinions; We're going to end up squablling over every single little thing until we won't be able to get anything done. It'll end up being a ton of chaos, and the only way for it to develop would be for the country to kind of lockdown, and become more nationalistic. I don't really want that to happen, but I see it as one of the only ways to keep this country going upon its current system. The more we grow, internally and externally, the more minorities there are and the bigger the problem becomes. Like instead of one minority having all the power, more like the Government itself having more power and not being so afraid to step on everyone's toes and actually be able to get things done without quaking in fear at the slightest media outcry.

[QUOTE=Hat in a Cat;37218807]I'm talking about both, basically. All forms of minorities, because broken down it's about the same thing with different base ideals. [editline]13th August 2012[/editline] The thing is, I never said it was a [I]bad[/I] thing for us not being allowed to target minorities. I even think it's a good thing. However, the more people in our country and the larger it is, the less it's going to be able to function as it does right now. Believe me, the ideals that the country was founded upon are great, and showed a big leap from the stuff that was going on at the time. I just don't think that this country will be able to function very well at its current way of handling minorities and people's differing opinions; We're going to end up squablling over every single little thing until we won't be able to get anything done. It'll end up being a ton of chaos, and the only way for it to develop would be for the country to kind of lockdown, and become more nationalistic. I don't really want that to happen, but I see it as one of the only ways to keep this country going upon its current system. The more we grow, internally and externally, the more minorities there are and the bigger the problem becomes. Like instead of one minority having all the power, more like the Government itself having more power and not being so afraid to step on everyone's toes and actually be able to get things done without quaking in fear at the slightest media outcry.[/QUOTE] So what if we squabble? we still get stuff done. Arguing is not a bad thing; it helps find the best option. And this whole "the country has to lockdown to develop" idea is bullshit. We have been doing it for years, it's not going to stop now. And how would the government itself having more power solve anything? the government is made up of civilians, so you are effectively just giving more power to the politician minority. And the government should be afraid to step on our toes. I do not want our rights "stepped on".

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37221175]So what if we squabble? we still get stuff done. Arguing is not a bad thing; it helps find the best option. And this whole "the country has to lockdown to develop" idea is bullshit. We have been doing it for years, it's not going to stop now. And how would the government itself having more power solve anything? the government is made up of civilians, so you are effectively just giving more power to the politician minority. And the government should be afraid to step on our toes. I do not want our rights "stepped on".[/QUOTE] Yeah, we do still get things done. Yet at the rate we're going we're going to get less and less done in certain fields, and it can create a ton of problems. Yes, we've done it for years; no, it's not going to stop now. As I said, though, everything is growing, and there are more and more people being born, and more and more minorities being created. Especially with things like the internet, people are being connected in ways that people could never have of imagined. Perhaps I didn't word it very well. What I mean is that the Government should have a greater ability to govern people and enforce stricter laws, instead of not being to do things that they currently can't, regarding minorities. i.e. age discrimination for drivers. While not exactly a "minority", persay, I think it could fall under what I'm trying to say.

[QUOTE=Hat in a Cat;37222647]Yeah, we do still get things done. Yet at the rate we're going we're going to get less and less done in certain fields, and it can create a ton of problems. Yes, we've done it for years; no, it's not going to stop now. As I said, though, everything is growing, and there are more and more people being born, and more and more minorities being created. Especially with things like the internet, people are being connected in ways that people could never have of imagined. Perhaps I didn't word it very well. What I mean is that the Government should have a greater ability to govern people and enforce stricter laws, instead of not being to do things that they currently can't, regarding minorities. i.e. age discrimination for drivers. While not exactly a "minority", persay, I think it could fall under what I'm trying to say.[/QUOTE] the government can and does discriminate against drivers based on age. It's why you have to be 16 to drive. I don't understand this what you mean by "govern people and enforce stricter laws, instead of not being able to do things that they currently can't, regarding minorities". are you saying that we should stop certain "undesirable groups" from voting, to "streamline" the legislative process? I know, we can start a one-party system! one last thing: what do you mean "at the rate we are going"? We are not dividing up into more and more minorities, like you assume. Your whole idea is baseless.

The African and Hispanic American Voting Bloc. Make it happen.

[QUOTE=Fenderson;37232493]The African and Hispanic American Voting Bloc. Make it happen.[/QUOTE] what?