If we were not securing our borders against other nations determined to invade and take over America, you might have a point. But America's the most secure nation in the world, and so you don't have point.
There are a LOT of other nations much more secure than the USA. A LOT.
Name one. And bear in mind, by 'secure', I'm referring to external AND internal insecurity.
New Zealand. Iceland.
Do you really have honor? If you think you're being robbed by having to pay taxes, then if you do still somehow have honor, it's weakened by ignorance...or haven't you heard of the old saying, "Nothing is sure but death and taxes"? And higher taxes, sir, are the admission price one must pay to live in a first-world democracy.
If you don't want to pay high taxes, then most third-world democracies out there would be perfect for you. Otherwise...pay up, and learn to count your blessings. Not for naught did Cicero say, "Gratitude is not only the greatest of virtues, but the parent of all the others." Truer words were never spoken.
And if they had no protection whatsoever from other nations, how long could they stand against, say, Russia or China? Whereas, if America had no protection whatsoever from other nations, could we stand against any other nation? Easily. When it comes to Ireland and New Zealand (and every other stable democracy, even the ones that are more internally stable than America), their long-term security depends on protection from much larger nations like America, or from alliances like NATO.
My claim stands - NO other nation on this planet is as secure as America.
How do you explain that other first world nations have lower taxes? More over you confuse "Cost" and "Value". What we are getting is not worth the current cost, time to reduce spending, and slash and cap taxes.
No, I like America when it worked and we are going to restore it, do not like it? Leave.
You think it is "gratitude" to be robbed? You claim value emotion more then reason. Enjoy paying for your victimization, why wait? Why not write a check and lead by example?
Why not? Because you are generous with the money of others, not your own, that is nothing more disingenuous.
Name one. And bear in mind, by 'secure', I'm referring to external AND internal insecurity.
And I'm pretty sure it's been pointed out to you before that after one allows for all the deductions, breaks, and write-offs that are available to business in America, we've actually got one of the lowest corporate tax rates in the world.
If you want to live here, then you've got to pay the price of admission to life in a first-world nation. Everybody pays...including me, AND including you.
"Robbed"? Here we go with the conservative meme oh-no-dem-guv'mint-agents-are-a-robbin'-us-by-violence!!!! *sigh*
No sir, I pay my taxes as I'm supposed to, and I'm happy to do so...because I've seen first-hand what life is like when a nation has a government that's relatively so small that one could drown it in a bathtub....
I would feel much more secure in Australia, Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica, New Zealand, Scotland, Wales, Canada, Bermuda, Isle of Man, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Iceland. Should I go on? As you know, the US has a lot of enemies worldwide, there is a lot of hostility toward American citizens worldwide, US has somewhat high crime and violence rates. Security is a state of mind. Yes, I suppose that someone could invade New Zealand and kill all the citizens but who would want to? And what people are going to cross a couple of thousand miles of ocean to enter the country?
Pete Seeger had a song about Andorra spending $4.50 on "armaments in their defense..Did you every hear of such confidence....if security is what you need a head shrinker is cheaper and quicker and a damn sight safer too"
And if they had no protection whatsoever from other nations, how long could they stand against, say, Russia or China? Whereas, if America had no protection whatsoever from other nations, could we stand against any other nation? Easily. When it comes to Ireland and New Zealand (and every other stable democracy, even the ones that are more internally stable than America), their long-term security depends on protection from much larger nations like America, or from alliances like NATO.
My claim stands - NO other nation on this planet is as secure as America.
Wait a second. So Australia is insecure because they are nervous about China but the US is secure because it spends more than every other country on military and internal security forces? Why does the US spend so much if we are secure?But the sovereignty of none - not a single one - of those nations is as secure as that of the USA if there were no superpower around to ensure the security of their sovereignty. Yes, there is a lot of hostility towards Americans - which is why I get SO ticked off when I'm overseas and I see a fellow American acting like a high-and-mighty idiot, all it does is harden others' hearts towards us.
And Australia, for one, apparently feels the need for closer ties with the US because of the growing belligerence of China...which sorta shoots holes in your contention of just how secure you believe those nations to be. When it comes to the other nations you listed, several of them are either part of the UK or of the former British Commonwealth - what happens to them if there's no NATO, and thus no England? Even Costa Rica - what would happen to that fine nation (and it is a fine nation...as opposed to Singapore being a 'fine' city (joke)) if there were no strong nations nearby like America or Brazil, and then some megalomaniac warlord takes over in Venezuela or Honduras, hm?
No, not even oh-so-peaceful Costa Rica is not nearly so secure as America.
Wait a second. So Australia is insecure because they are nervous about China but the US is secure because it spends more than every other country on military and internal security forces? Why does the US spend so much if we are secure?
Australia should expect that they to be secure as they are protected by agreements with US and UK. They are the only country to join the US in all of our significant wars (Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Iraq, and Afghanistan) as well as all of UK's wars. They have earned the right to feel secure because of this commitment, even with 4 billion people living within 2,000 miles or so. Just as the US can claim to feel secure because of a $700 billion defense budget. If the US owes anyone, it is Australia.
Over the past 20 years, Australia has had 4 "terrorist" attacks-a French consulate firebombing with no deaths, an abortion clinic attack with one dead, Endeavor Hills police stabbing that left 2 injured, and a Sydney hostage situation that left 2 dead. Seems secure.
Wait a second. So Australia is insecure because they are nervous about China but the US is secure because it spends more than every other country on military and internal security forces?Why does the US spend so much if we are secure?
Australia should expect that they to be secure as they are protected by agreements with US and UK. They are the only country to join the US in all of our significant wars (Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Iraq, and Afghanistan) as well as all of UK's wars. They have earned the right to feel secure because of this commitment, even with 4 billion people living within 2,000 miles or so. Just as the US can claim to feel secure because of a $700 billion defense budget. If the US owes anyone, it is Australia.
Over the past 20 years, Australia has had 4 "terrorist" attacks-a French consulate firebombing with no deaths, an abortion clinic attack with one dead, Endeavor Hills police stabbing that left 2 injured, and a Sydney hostage situation that left 2 dead. Seems secure.
That is subjective so we should just end this debate...
Well, Switzerland seems rather safe and secure and has been for centuries despite all the turmoil around it yet only spent 0.7% of GDP on defense. Sweden seems safe yet only spends 1.2%. US spends c. 3.5%.The USA is secure because it spends so much.
You can't put a price tag on freedom.
See, as well, article in Duke Chronicle, an independent new journal at Duke University, Should there be reparations for African Americans?Preamble to Act said:To address the fundamental injustice, cruelty, brutality, and inhumanity of slavery in the United States and the 13 American colonies between 1619 and 1865 and to establish a commission to study and consider a national apology and proposal for reparations for the institution of slavery, its subsequent de jure and de facto racial and economic discrimination against African-Americans, and the impact of these forces on living African-Americans, to make recommendations to the Congress on appropriate remedies, and for other purposes.
African-Americans are hardly the only group to suffer serious and crippling discrimination.Duke Chronical article said:Reparations for African Americans are crucial to fight white supremacy and compensate for slavery's consequences, scholars said at a town hall forum Monday, but they aren't enough.
Te-Nehisi Coates' recent article in The Atlantic has raised a few eyebrows, and showed me just how much I did not know concerning how America and America's government has oppressed the African American community in the past...and even to the modern day.
Coates points out that reparations isn't a matter of "we can't afford it" or "how do we determine who gets paid how much", but a matter of right and wrong. America - and America's government - committed great wrongs against the African American community over many generations, including within my own lifetime.
I was raised to believe that if I did somebody wrong, I should apologize sincerely...and I should do my level best to make it up to those I wronged. I was taught that a refusal to make up for what I have done to others is not just wrong, but dishonorable.
It is for this reason that I agree that we as a nation should pay reparations to the African American community - because it is a matter of right and wrong, a matter of our national honor.
For more see Thread: Long-Term Reparations for Victim Groups Not Necessary or Warranted.If anyone alive today (a) has directly wronged another person alive today (b) then that person (a) may owe compensation to the other person (b). If this is a matter of white people should give black people money then no.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?