The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

What is a nation without a strong government? Options
marylamb
Posted: Monday, April 19, 2010 6:35:28 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/8/2010
Posts: 328
Neurons: 1,017
Location: United States
The corporate fascists think they can run a country just fine. A nation without a strong government is a nation begging for a stronger regime with money and weapons of mass destruction to 'walk right in.' Do people actually believe the billionaires in this country don't have the capability to take over our democracy?

1. Will the fascists pave our streets and fix pot holes? or will they create super highways for themselves with tolls so expensive no one but the super rich can afford to pay?

2. Will the fascists provide an excellent education for our children? or will they be state-run brainwashing camps that prepare workers for a lifetime of powerless and unfulfilling service?

3. Will buildings and the workplace environment be safe? or will they be death traps like the mine in West Virginia owned and operated by aliens who disrespect humanity?

We need to think very carefully who we give our money to and whom we vote for. We need to keep our government strong, keep our democracy safe, and cherish our Constitution.
Isaac Samuel
Posted: Monday, April 19, 2010 9:09:12 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/2/2009
Posts: 674
Neurons: 1,222
Location: United States
marylamb wrote:

"Do people actually believe the billionaires in this country don't have the capability to take over our democracy?"

Yes,they can't because we, the consumers made them Billionaires.They can not alienate us and sustain themselves, nor can we make do without them.

The annals of Higher Education is built by them directly or indirectly.Would you rather have them fill the pot holes instead?(items 1 and 2)

Item 3 seems disjointed for me to respond cohesively.

Last Paragraph is too general.Can you give us some parametric equations to achieve them?
redsxz
Posted: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 3:42:45 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/27/2009
Posts: 1,083
Neurons: 5,425
Agreed with Isaac your possible conspiracy theories are too vague in their nature to be of any discernible value.
Acharya
Posted: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 5:11:10 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/11/2010
Posts: 71
Neurons: 8,377
Few people like to be governed by others. The best Government is that governs the least. As long as man wants to live in society, rules are necessary. To implement them, certainly some kind of Government is necessary. Strong Government does not mean ruthless Government. After experiencing so many kinds of Governments, it can be reasonably assumed that democratic form of Government is the best in a situation where people are educated and can manage their affairs without depending much on Government. Government should primarily concentrate on security, Justice and health. Problem with any Government is that big business people always try to influence the Government. One thing is sure - As long as few exercise power over many, there will always be injustices.
kisholoy mukherjee
Posted: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 5:32:49 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/31/2009
Posts: 3,740
Neurons: 7,777
Location: here and there
One can argue even North korea has a 'strong' govt. But is the nation even 'okay'?
However, in general, it is obvious that every country would need its government to take some responsibility at least.
Sitting in India, and seeing regular bouts of mob violence and government inaction to follow, I can clearly see what an useless government is like.
kisholoy mukherjee
Posted: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 5:37:00 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/31/2009
Posts: 3,740
Neurons: 7,777
Location: here and there
However, I think marylamb has a point. Money is power. After all, if you let money flow so unevenly that only one section of the society gets rich beyond controllable limits, then soon a time will come when these rich ones will start assuming control over the society and perhaps even the government. Democracy sounds great, but unfortunately, it can be equally useless if you do not have a proper societal architechture planned out before-hand that can enable you to have control over democracy. Or else, the top cream of the society can easily buy off the ones getting elected. It happens all the time here in India. So, Marylamb does have a valid point.
Susie
Posted: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 10:59:48 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/11/2010
Posts: 381
Neurons: 1,154
Location: United States
A good leader makes a great government. The Amish here in the US have proven that. They follow the church and work with each other, are peacful, productive and self reliant. They don't use welfare, or worry about getting their taxes filed on time like the "Average American" does.
And another example of good leadership vs. government is the tribes in Peru. They have a leader and the tribes work together to feed and cloth each other. They are peaceful, and productive as the Amish.
These two groups have existed and survived as long as our government and have done so very well. They are no more rich or poor than our government (actually they are probably better off) and they don't do wars, welfare or retirement.
Now I know they are not 100% perfect, they too have flaws- but over all compared to the US government, strong leadership seems to be a much better route to follow. Poloticians don't necesarrily make for good leaders. Sometimes they just have more money and power than the "other guy". Having more money and power isn't always going to help a country, this has been proven before. A good leader can't be beat. Thinking of other "leaders" from history to can validate my point. The Romans, the Greeks, Chinese dynasties to just name a few. Yes eventuall they fell and became their own destructors, but not before making significant advancements in their society.
marylamb
Posted: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 11:28:23 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/8/2010
Posts: 328
Neurons: 1,017
Location: United States
Nicely said, Acharya.

Thank you, kisholoy.

Isaac Samuel, some people obviously are unable to come up with rational debate points, so they make up gibberish. Do you really think you are reaching the masses with comments like "parametric equations?" Did you mean 'parametric representation?' Either way, you over intellectualized my points. It's best to adhere to simple concepts. My thesis was not that difficult.
kisholoy mukherjee
Posted: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 11:59:04 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/31/2009
Posts: 3,740
Neurons: 7,777
Location: here and there
marylamb wrote:
Nicely said, Acharya.

Thank you, kisholoy.

Isaac Samuel, some people obviously are unable to come up with rational debate points, so they make up gibberish. Do you really think you are reaching the masses with comments like "parametric equations?" Did you mean 'parametric representation?' Either way, you over intellectualized my points. It's best to adhere to simple concepts. My thesis was not that difficult.


Yes, I also couldn't get what was meant by parametric equations in this context. An example of a parametric equation is x=acos(t), y=asin(t) for the circle with center at (0,0) and a constant radius. (eqn. of circle then becomes x^2+y^2=a^2)
So, what has this got to do with the present discussion?
marylamb
Posted: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 12:51:39 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/8/2010
Posts: 328
Neurons: 1,017
Location: United States
kisholoy, beats me... maybe it's a new kind of ad hominem argument.
Investigator
Posted: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 2:10:28 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/21/2010
Posts: 991
Neurons: 2,961
Location: Northern Nevàda
marylamb wrote:
Nicely said, Acharya.

Thank you, kisholoy.

Isaac Samuel, some people obviously are unable to come up with rational debate points, so they make up gibberish. Do you really think you are reaching the masses with comments like "parametric equations?" Did you mean 'parametric representation?' Either way, you over intellectualized my points. It's best to adhere to simple concepts. My thesis was not that difficult.


Marylamb your rant on "corporate facists" is at least as nonsensical as Issac's is over-intellectual. Your use of the term "corporate facists" immediately makes me think you are a communist or have such leanings. However, communism is inimical to our Constitutional Republic government, the main purpose of which is to protect the Liberty of the people.

George Washington in his Farewell Address said that a vigorous central government is necessary for the protection of the Union. He warned of dangers of politcal parties and factions undermining the goverment. His Farewell Address should be required reading for any student graduating from any school in the US. I suggest you all read it. You can get it here: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Washington%27s_Farewell_Address#26 on Wikipedia.

Sorry, Susie, but it is not good leaders that make good government, it is the people who make the government. There are but 545 people who comprise all of the federal government (obviously not including civil servents). They are the President, the Supreme Court, the Senate and the House of Representatives. If they are failing, if they are corrupt, if they bow to corporate interests, it is we the people who are at fault.

When is the last time any of you took the time to investigate the candidate to whom you gave your precious vote? Whether that person was running for President or Dog Catcher, you abdicated your duty if you did not at least try to inform yourself about the candidate. I know that is tough when the party system has been set up to force feed you what the party wants you to know but it can be done. Pay attention to what they say.

I did not vote for Obama because he bragged about being part the political system in Chicago, which is probably the most corrupt system in the country. I gave up on Sarah Palin when Catie Couric asked her why she should be Vice President. Palin should have looked Couric right in the eye and said, "Well, I have more executive experience than Obama." Which was true then and will not be true in 2012.

If we are unhappy with the status quo, we can change that. We don't because it is too much trouble or because we want the seniority of the candidate. We can change the status quo, not by following a political guru like a puppy dog but by informing ourselves and making the right choices; and by correcting our mistakes the next election.

Nevada is set to correct some mistakes this election cycle. I recommend that all of you do the same.
marylamb
Posted: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 3:41:34 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/8/2010
Posts: 328
Neurons: 1,017
Location: United States
Investigator, you spelled 'fascist' wrong.

WOW! I would never call someone a communist based on limited information -- that's just rude!

I am a proud liberal, faithful to our Democratic government, and a defender of our great Constitution. How on earth do you get 'communist' out of that? Actually, democracy and republic mean about the same thing.

You need to read the forum terms and guidelines. I am offended by your name calling and labeling me a communist out of anger or intolerance of my opinion.
Maggie
Posted: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 3:50:37 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2009
Posts: 730
Neurons: 2,128
[quote=marylamb]

I am a proud liberal, faithful to our Democratic government, and a defender of our great Constitution.

You mean the 'living, breathing document you want to completely dismantle from its original form in order to turn us into a Socialist nation? If we really FOLLOW the constitution you so proudly 'defend', then NONE of Obama's major overhaul would get done.

You're a very funny woman.
marylamb
Posted: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 6:03:06 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/8/2010
Posts: 328
Neurons: 1,017
Location: United States
"The living, breathing document you want to completely dismantle." Prove I want to dismantle it!
Maggie
Posted: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 8:02:21 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2009
Posts: 730
Neurons: 2,128
marylamb wrote:
"The living, breathing document you want to completely dismantle." Prove I want to dismantle it!


Do you believe the constitution is a 'living, breathing document that needs to be interpreted differently as times change?
HWNN1961
Posted: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 11:01:10 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/13/2010
Posts: 3,496
Neurons: 9,763
I believe that the thread here is refers to the choice we in the US face:

The far right wants to privatize everything. We've just legalized unlimited corporate influence in our elections. A weak government that outsources all of it's functions (even the military....see Blackwater, or whatever they call themselves now) to for profit entities. Our government will cease to represent us at all, and at last openly be the servant of the corporations and the oligarchs.

or:

Continue the progress begun by Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt, LBJ, and now Barak Obama. A government that represents the wishes of it's people, and seeks their well-being and saftey. A government that is a bulwark to defend the weak from the strong...instead of the opposite: a front for a cabal of the rich and powerful elite.
marylamb
Posted: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 11:04:01 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/8/2010
Posts: 328
Neurons: 1,017
Location: United States
Maggie, don't change the subject. If you are going to accuse me of wanting to "completely dismantle" the Constitution, then you had better be prepared to back up the statement with proof.

The Constitution is a written document, a set of rules for government to follow. It isn't "alive," and it doesn't "breathe."

Well said, HWNN1961. It's good to know people are not afraid to speak-up, and tell the truth.

Epiphileon
Posted: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 1:11:08 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 4,219
Neurons: 165,216
Mary has a very valid concern, even if some see her phrasing as inflammatory.
Anyone who thinks that big money doesn't have a large, and detrimental influence on this country's government is deluding themselves.
As one example, there is another farewell address by a former President that ought be required reading, and or viewing, by every citizen, that of President Eisenhower. He makes it clear, in no uncertain terms that the military-industrial complex is one of the greatest dangers to our country.
I would not use the term "strong government" I would say a government with integrity. In other words a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, gee what a concept.
Term limits.
Strict campaign funding limits.
No allowance for lobbyist, gifts, trips, or gratuities.

kisholoy mukherjee
Posted: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 2:17:58 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/31/2009
Posts: 3,740
Neurons: 7,777
Location: here and there
I agree fully with epiphileon and Marylamb.
Maggie
Posted: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 3:10:34 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2009
Posts: 730
Neurons: 2,128
marylamb wrote:
Maggie, don't change the subject. If you are going to accuse me of wanting to "completely dismantle" the Constitution, then you had better be prepared to back up the statement with proof.

The Constitution is a written document, a set of rules for government to follow. It isn't "alive," and it doesn't "breathe."

Well said, HWNN1961. It's good to know people are not afraid to speak-up, and tell the truth.



I'm not changing the subject. You asked me to give a case for your involvement in the destruction of the Constitution. But YOU'RE dodging the issue. You said the Constitution is a set of rules. Do you believe in the systematic changing of those rules because the Constitution is a 'living, breathing document' that should be reinterpreted to fit the changing conditions of the country?

If you say 'NO', then you MUST be a staunch follower of Rush Limbaugh. If you say 'Yes', then you are a part of the dismantling of the original Constitution BECAUSE if the Supreme Court has the right to reinterpret the Constitution any way they want, then we essentially HAVE NO CONSTITUTION and any rights and freedoms you may have enjoyed under the original version are now subject to the whims of the Supreme Court.

Happy now?
Geeman
Posted: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 5:37:43 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2009
Posts: 1,788
Neurons: 125,022
Location: Whittier, California, United States
A bit of a quibble: A strong government isn't really good or bad. At least, it's as likely to go one way as the other. If you reflect upon any particular oppressive regime, that government would probably be considered "strong" when it was doing its worst.

What a country really needs is a stable government. A slow, ponderous government. The kind of government that everyone can complain about equally. A government that requires compromise. It doesn't even really have to be a particularly competent government, but if it stays more or less out of people's lives--or at least doesn't change the rules constantly--the dynamics of a typical population can kick in, creating a steady, regular progress for the nation. Some governments are better at fascilitating that kind of progress than others, but it's the consistency that is more important than even the rate at which progress occurs that is the first consideration of a government's merit.
Isaac Samuel
Posted: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 8:40:15 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/2/2009
Posts: 674
Neurons: 1,222
Location: United States
marylamb:"

"Isaac Samuel, some people obviously are unable to come up with rational debate points, so they make up gibberish."

In the above remark, you make third party references like "some people" and " they make up"
for being gibberish. Is it me or you or some one else?

Thank you for giving me the dubious honor by calling me an intellectual on one hand and expecting me to dumb down on the other hand.

I asked for an equation, where I can plug-in different parameters that you wanted in a strong Government and in a safe democracy,when I mentioned "parametric equation." Hope I made it palatable now. Thank You.


kisholoy mukherjee
Posted: Thursday, April 22, 2010 4:17:48 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/31/2009
Posts: 3,740
Neurons: 7,777
Location: here and there
An interesting read on this topic by Einstein:
http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einstein.php
chitta chatta
Posted: Thursday, May 13, 2010 1:10:57 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/22/2010
Posts: 410
Neurons: 1,183
Location: Australia
I bet Greece, etc. wish they had a few rich billionaires in THEIR country/s right now to prop up their economy.
buxton
Posted: Thursday, May 13, 2010 10:07:22 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/11/2009
Posts: 120
Neurons: 377
Location: UK
marylamb: 'WOW! I would never call someone a communist based on limited information -- that's just rude!

You need to read the forum terms and guidelines. I am offended by your name calling and labeling me a communist out of anger or intolerance of my opinion.'

And why exactly does 'communist' constitute name calling? Not everybody thinks of it as a pejorative term. In fact, if I were a communist (I doubt it) then I would be offended by your implication that communist is pejorative. I imagine a lot of communists would much rather have their view of social fairness and removal of greed than share your own lame, bourgeois anxieties about pot holes.

And if you're specifically referring to the US then, as far as I see it, you do have a strong government. Yes there is corruption, the influence of powerful businesses (not least the banks) is present everywhere, but the healthcare bill and imposition on car companies to commit to hybrids (when they needed bailouts) indicates Obama isn't exactly cowed by their pressure.
HWNN1961
Posted: Thursday, May 13, 2010 10:20:37 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/13/2010
Posts: 3,496
Neurons: 9,763
Geeman wrote:
A bit of a quibble: A strong government isn't really good or bad. At least, it's as likely to go one way as the other. If you reflect upon any particular oppressive regime, that government would probably be considered "strong" when it was doing its worst.

What a country really needs is a stable government. A slow, ponderous government. The kind of government that everyone can complain about equally. A government that requires compromise. It doesn't even really have to be a particularly competent government, but if it stays more or less out of people's lives--or at least doesn't change the rules constantly--the dynamics of a typical population can kick in, creating a steady, regular progress for the nation. Some governments are better at fascilitating that kind of progress than others, but it's the consistency that is more important than even the rate at which progress occurs that is the first consideration of a government's merit.


I think you've hit on it Geeman. That is what the US system of checks and balances was designed to provide in the first place. Well said!
RuthP
Posted: Thursday, May 13, 2010 11:01:48 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/2/2009
Posts: 5,414
Neurons: 87,603
Location: Drain, Oregon, United States
According to Forbes: Forbes: The Worlds Billionaires, there are two Greek citizens worth over:
$ 1 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10.

According to the same site, neither these gentlemen, nor any other billionaires reside in Greece.

kisholoy mukherjee
Posted: Thursday, May 13, 2010 1:37:47 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/31/2009
Posts: 3,740
Neurons: 7,777
Location: here and there
buxton wrote:
marylamb: 'WOW! I would never call someone a communist based on limited information -- that's just rude!

You need to read the forum terms and guidelines. I am offended by your name calling and labeling me a communist out of anger or intolerance of my opinion.'

And why exactly does 'communist' constitute name calling? Not everybody thinks of it as a pejorative term. In fact, if I were a communist (I doubt it) then I would be offended by your implication that communist is pejorative. I imagine a lot of communists would much rather have their view of social fairness and removal of greed than share your own lame, bourgeois anxieties about pot holes.

And if you're specifically referring to the US then, as far as I see it, you do have a strong government. Yes there is corruption, the influence of powerful businesses (not least the banks) is present everywhere, but the healthcare bill and imposition on car companies to commit to hybrids (when they needed bailouts) indicates Obama isn't exactly cowed by their pressure.


I think if it were me, then I would have been a little irritated at that someone concluded something so sensitive as what political concept I am inclined towards. But whether it was capitalist or communist, i wouldn't have said I had just been called a name. That, really is going too far. I would just tell that person to not comment about me and my ideals without knowing me. Because labeling someone as something like communist or capitalist, unless the person himself has shown that he likes being labeled as any one of these, is not a very polite gesture and it can also show the clear element of contempt in the mind of the person about the ideal that he just attributed the other one to.
In my case though, I would much rather be called a communist than a capitalist, but then again, I am NOT a communist, since I certainly do not like all its principles. I feel happiest, like everyone else, when people refer to me as what i like myself to be described as..mostly apolitical, with political views not derived from any solitary political ideal.
chitta chatta
Posted: Friday, May 14, 2010 6:39:00 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/22/2010
Posts: 410
Neurons: 1,183
Location: Australia
geeman said:
What a country really needs is a stable government. A slow, ponderous government. The kind of government that everyone can complain about equally. A government that requires compromise. It doesn't even really have to be a particularly competent government, but if it stays more or less out of people's lives--or at least doesn't change the rules constantly--the dynamics of a typical population can kick in, creating a steady, regular progress for the nation. Some governments are better at fascilitating that kind of progress than others, but it's the consistency that is more important than even the rate at which progress occurs that is the first consideration of a government's merit.

C/c says: Has anyone read the Book of "KINGS" in the Holy Bible? It is the most boring book. I thought "what is the point of all this re-petitive garbage? What is God trying to tell us?" Then, when the next election came round, then the next, and-so-on; I recognised that whether it's a god, a king, a president/prime-minister; it is in human nature to criticise our leaders. We are NEVER satisifed; and, by the looks of history we NEVER have been; To me, it's an oxymoron that the "whole" world can see the good in Obama and would like to see him given a "fair go" Yet, no matter what ANY President tries to do, many American people whinge and want to put him on the 'first-train-out-of-town'! I was around when John Kennedy was shot... after his honeymoon phase, they took EXACTLY the same approach - that he was no good; blah, blah, blah. THEN when John was shot.. they all shed tears over what they lost. Human nature.. we never change... we never appreciate what we've been given till it's gone.
marylamb
Posted: Friday, May 14, 2010 12:07:17 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/8/2010
Posts: 328
Neurons: 1,017
Location: United States
chitta chatta: "C/c says: Has anyone read the Book of "KINGS" in the Holy Bible? It is the most boring book. I thought "what is the point of all this re-petitive (sp) garbage?"

Why bring this up? Yes, I have read 1Kings and 2Kings. As a kid I wondered 'what is the point of all this murder and revenge?'

Lets take a look:

1 Kings:
"When thy feet enter into the city, the child shall die." 14:12 (Hmm... that's interesting!)
"Elijah kills 450 prophets of Baal." 18:22, 40 (I wonder if this is where the English got the great idea to slaughter the Druids to extinction. The Druids were not 'tree worshippers', they were an intellectual cast who got in the way of Christianity.)
"God puts a "lying spirit" in the mouth of his prophets". 22:22 (How good of him.)
2 Kings:
"God pays back Ahab by killing his son." 9:24 (And the justice in this is...?)
"Even though Josiah did all that God asked of him, God still punished him and all Jerusalem for the acts of his grandfather." 23:26 (And the justice in this is...?)

We should all be thankful we no longer follow the example of ancient mythology to guide us in our modern times. We cannot have a weakened government and a weakened constitution. We cannot have a government that favors one group of people and shuns another. Less government means less people being served and protected. Less government means less checks and balances and more corruption and fraud. A strong government is not less or more, it's stable, unshakable, dependable.
chitta chatta
Posted: Saturday, May 15, 2010 1:17:28 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/22/2010
Posts: 410
Neurons: 1,183
Location: Australia
marylamb said: (1) Why bring this up? (i.e. Book of Kings)
Marylamb said: (2) We cannot have a government favour one group over another.

(1) Maybe a better way of making my point is with an old quote:- "You can please some of the people sometimes, but you can't please ALL of the people all the time". That is the moral I discovered in Kings I & II; It is the same 2000(+) years ago as it is in TODAY'S political scene. No matter who gets into power, we will always be critical of him/her! Plus, I agree with Investigator that the term "corporate FACISTS" is a strong/unusual term for everyday speech. I prefer "Corporate COWBOYS".

(2) I agree with a quote from Maggie Simpson "freedom means 'being forever-vigilant'". IF we are "forever-vigilant", THEN:- (1) there is no "true" freedom, and (2) Everything comes "at a price (i.e. you can never relax your guard). So, if you talk of the importance of a "strong" government, then economic leanings in one area of government (i.e. Defence) will come at a heavey price to other areas (i.e. Health, etc). For example, one of the major reasons Greece's economy is broke is because (due to their differences with Turkey) Greece has the 3rd-highest defence-costs in the world. But, when a country has NO defence costs it can become very wealthy indeed.. For example:- Germany and Japan were both banned from "defence-spending" after WW1+2. Without this heavy burden, both these countries invested into more useful areas. As a result, both their economies grew rapidly. Therefore, some countries have more impediments on them, than others. (Irony here is that Germany sells weapons to/PROFIT from Greece's defence problem)

So, if you choose to spend LESS ON DEFENCE as a group, you have more to spend on the other groups (OR) if you spend MORE on Defence as one group, there is less to spend elsewhere. When there is less money around a government has to make the decision of what areas qualify spending over another.. As I have shown above, each country has different commitments.

Although the Capitalist system is not perfect, neither is/was any other system. As it is now being adopted by many other countries that had different political status, it proves that it is the best of a worst bunch. As an example of "corporate-fairness" (i.e. dishing out more of the top-cream to those at the bottom) I think Australia has the best example of a "fairer" Democracy (not that we haven't had our share of "Corporate Cowboys"). Recent devastating corporate failures may force American leaders to seek similar lines to ourselves.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.