General Chat Thread 3: This Thread Transcends Titles

Except, ya know, if we do go hands off and isolationist, something like 9/11 or worse could happen because we let some bad people simmer and gain strength too long, or maybe China or Russia grows a pair and attacks one of our allies, ie, NATO, because "America gone isolationist so we can do whatever we want!" (Or must I remind y'all of Pearl Harbor? )
This complete isolationist view does NOT belong in a globalized world, however, what does need to be done s make it to where the UN can actually do stuff, especially the Security Council, I mean, the UNSC is essentially useless because if ONE of the five Permanent seats vetos, the measure is dead forever. The burden of guarding the world and upholding international treaty shouldn't rest on the shoulders of a single nation (US, which is pretty much how it is now)

 

At the very least, America should return to the non-interventionist policies of the twenties and thirties.
The U.S. spent 640 billion dollars on defense last year.
If we cut that in half, and focused only on defending our own borders, we could pay back our debts within a few years and repair our national infrastructure.

 

Just one problem, the current budget deficit is in excess of $500 billion dollars, relying on cuts to y he military alone would Make a HUGE impact on the economy, and not in a good way. After all, SOMEBODY'S has to.make those planes, guns, etc the military is buying. If you really want to balance the budget, cuts have to be across the board, along with some form of tax hike. After all, America has one of the lowest average tax rates of ANY developed, western nation.
But I agree, America definitely only needs to intervene in places where it is asked to intervene or if a direct attack on America or her allies (namely NATO because of common defense) originated from that place.
Also, to pay for that complete infrastructure rebuild, it would cost upward of a couple trillion over a decade or so. Not exactly easy to pay for.

 

It wouldn't be very difficult to make up the rest of the deficit.
I've thought about this quite a bit, and I've figured out a way to reform the current tax system without causing strain on anybody.
It's a very complicated system, which may explain why it's not currently in effect.

1. Tax rates will be decided based on income.
-The more money a person makes, the higher their tax rate will be.

2. Tax evasion will result in jail time and seizure of assets.
-Tax evasion has cost the U.S. government more than three trillion dollars in the last decade. That's enough to pay off the national debt several times over.

A mad plan, I know, but I believe that it could work.

 

1): is literally what the Democrats want to do, but Republicans won't let them because they believe in trickle down economics
2): is literally what the law is now, the hard part is enforcing it.

And you would be surprised how hard the rest would be without destabilizing the country or making everyone hate you. What programs would you gut to make up the final 200 billion? Medicare? Medicaid? Welfare? Oh wait, if you touch those, everyone who relies on them hate you. Also, this is going off a 300 billion reduction in military spending which would really hurt an already fragile economic recovery time, plus everyone who likes the military being as is will hate you.
And this is saying the Congress could even get their act together to pass a single damn bill, because, believe it or not, the President has very little power in the face of an unfriendly Congress.

Honestly, a lot of our nation's problems actually go back to Reagan, the main often touted as one of the best presidents in our nation's history.

 

I see no problem with gutting Welfare.
I know way too many able-bodied people who refuse to work because it's easier to collect a Welfare check.
Meanwhile, farmers and growers lost millions last year because they couldn't find enough people to harvest the crops.
The solution to both problems seems obvious to me.

 

Except A): you can't force people to go anywhere, also if they're poor enough for welfsre, they are probably too poor to move out to the countryside to get paid very little by fsrming. And B): in fact, the majority of people use welfare as it should, you shouldn't punish those who need that little extra to make It through until they can support themselves again because a small minority doesn't like working. Welfare needs reform yes, but remember as long so there is a system, there is a way to cheat it

 

Did I just walk into the right or wrong argument here ?

I could rant about Abbott and how Australia has embarrassed itself, but it looks like fun just watching a political debate just after I was involved with a major one at school.

 

I've read about Abbot, that man truly is a bloody idiot. Australia may have a deficit, but it was a healthy one that doesn't require mass austerity and such to fix instantly, could have just slowly been fixed over a number of yesrs. Not to mention he seems to like the trickle down policies that have worked "so well" over here stateside xD

 

There is no need for anybody to move, as many farmers are willing to provide transportation for farm workers.
That said, even if they did have to move, so what?
If there are no jobs where you are, then you go somewhere else to find one. That's how this country has worked for more than two centuries.
That's what people did before Welfare, at least.

True, there are some people who honestly need Welfare.
However, in my experience, the vast majority are people who simply don't want to work.
I see no problem with taking it away from those people.


There are many ways to put this country back on the right track.
For example, the U.S. spends billions fighting the "war on drugs."
Billions more are spent on prosecuting and incarcerating drug users.
A great deal of that is from marijuana.

If, instead of fighting against marijuana, the U.S. were to legalize it, and tax it like they do alcohol and tobacco, it would create jobs, and provide millions, possibly billions, in tax income for the federal government.
That money could then be spent on repairing the national infrastructure, which would create even more jobs.

More jobs would mean more money being spent. More people shopping.
Retailers would have to hire more people to work in their stores. Even more jobs.
Manufacturers would have to keep up with the increased demand. Still more jobs.
Like falling dominoes, a simple change to national policy could affect a great many things.

Sadly, the people currently in charge are too busy fighting over partisan politics to actually make any useful changes.

 

Extremely relevant (Bit of a language warning however)

[video=youtube;c3IaKVmkXuk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3IaKVmkXuk[/video]

Tony Abbott is an absolute joke of a prime minister, he's technically our version of Bush. With the recent idea for the liberal party to introduce the Budget that involved with seriously damaging the education, raising costs horrendously for the education system and the already damaged health care from years of prior misuse. The budget only benefits the 1% and hurts the other 99%. This whole issue could have been easily fixed within several years, but instead, we're stuck with pigs who are dedicated to screwing over the elderly, the disabled, students, the unemployed, education, families and Australia’s youth. We've also had some serious student riots as well.

Australia is trying desperately to become something that it can't and never would be, A western culture in the east, or America 2.0. Australia, while not perfect, should not be treading over the people as they are at the moment. Abbott is hated by many, yet these people moan and cry about about having him in office even if he somehow wins the next election. I absolutely hate Abbott, and I hope he loses the next election by an absolute landslide.

Hell, even my best friend is considering joining politics if his dream (And also mine) of being a Game Designer fails.

 

Well it's past midnight I'm hitting the hay

 

Ronald Weasley confirmed for ponyfog.



As you were.

 

And yea, did millions of Potter fans across the world cry out in horror. All the while, the brony community greets this news with an enthusiastic...

 

I don't like my current living situation and I don't want to go back where I came from again. If I had all the money in the world I still don't know where I'd want to go and it's driving me crazy. It's like starting a new world in Minecraft and not being able to pick a spot to start building stuff.

 

I'd go to Denmark, if I could. Happiest country in the world, apparently, so I'd certainly like to put that claim to the test. Sure, learning to speak Danish might be a royal pain, but I've always been a language nut anyway.

 

I suppose if Lars gave me the choice between Danish lessons and drum lessons, I'd choose the former. Because only one of those would he actually be qualified to teach.

...Also, the adorableness of that Rockette emote is too damn high!