America - The Official Thread

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Just wait til Trump sends us to war with North Korea and/or a war with whomever attacks Israel over the capital thing. Then he'll be the president who's contributed most to the national debt. Whoever replaces Trump will probably continue the tend.

Unless we get out of fighting ridiculous wars, the debt will continue to climb. Clinton had the luxury of not really having a major conflict since the Kosovo War was NATO and not just the US.

He still kept national spending up and didn't really do anything to decrease it, and then it shot up to 3 when Bush got in, and Obama kept it going even with a sequester in the middle, and it's still going strong. War, no war, semi-war, Military national spending is still vastly insane.

Clinton started the war on terror really, or the precursor to it and that allowed national spending to not teeter.

 

[Danoff]

Maybe. With a flat rate tax, you'd also get rid of deductions, loopholes, and anything else that's used to skew the amount you pay. 20% would probably be more than enough if the government figured out their outrageous spending habits. Taking home 80% of my earnings would be nice.

On top of that, they could do away with state and local income tax and instead just use sales tax to generate money.

Sales tax also makes sure that everyone has skin in the game. Right now retirees are able to skirt a lot of taxes, and they sometimes vote accordingly. It also causes foreign governments and corporations to more effectively pay for the US government... and it increases privacy... and it encourages savings... ah I could wax on and on about this.

 

[samurai8juice]

Whenever it comes to Israel, why is it just the U.S. and occasionally Canada that supports the Israeli side? I don't understand how Europe can accept, essentially, a terrorist organization function as a country. But Europe does have a shaky history with the holy land.

Personally I'm all for officially recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, because it is the capital of Israel. Do I think it could bring more violence to either Israel or the United States though? I say no, because there already is violence directed from parts of the Arab world toward both places, but it probably adds to the score being kept by Arab extremists.

Some Americans complain about how we give so much foreign aid to Israel, but, I say somebody has to (and honestly it's just a drop in the pocketbook). If the U.S. didn't support the country, whose to say that any unstable Arab government in the region wouldn't try and take it?

 

[KungFury]

Some Americans complain about how we give so much foreign aid to Israel, but, I say somebody has to (and honestly it's just a drop in the pocketbook). If the U.S. didn't support the country, whose to say that any unstable Arab government in the region wouldn't try and take it?

38 billion over 10 years in military aid is a good deal for us as we get plenty in return. Or... we could pull out and drill our own oil, I'm sure that will happen lol.

I hear the complaints too, must be from the uneducated.

 

[Johnnypenso]

McCarthyism is alive and well it seems:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ace-growing-boycotts-from-dem-led-cities.html

As President Trump pushes forward with his promised U.S.-Mexico border wall, companies competing for the chance to work on the multi-billion-dollar project are facing mounting boycotts from local Democratic lawmakers moving to blacklist the border builders. Coordinated efforts have been launched in California, Arizona, Illinois, New York and Rhode Island that would prohibit cities and towns from doing any official business with the companies as part of a larger resistance strategy to delay construction of the controversial wall. Most recently, Berkeley’s City Council in California approved an ordinance that would ban it from contracting with companies involved in the construction

 

[wvmgmidget]

McCarthyism is alive and well it seems:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ace-growing-boycotts-from-dem-led-cities.html

That would have to be unconstitutional. Among other things the federal government regulates interstate commerce not states or municipalities.

 

[TenEightyOne]

That would have to be unconstitutional. Among other things the federal government regulates interstate commerce not states or municipalities.

I don't see the connection - surely states/districts/whatever are free to spend or invest as they choose? I just hope that in years to come it's called "The Great Wall of Trump".

 

[Johnnypenso]

I don't see the connection - surely states/districts/whatever are free to spend or invest as they choose? I just hope that in years to come it's called "The Great Wall of Trump".

I haven't investigated the legalities but you'd think there'd be some rules about the bidding process for government contracts being fair and open to any legal business that meets the qualifications in terms of skills, size and other logistic requirements. If they can discriminate based on a company performing a legal service for another government agency just because they don't like the politics of that agency, that would open up a whole can of political worms so to speak. At it's heart it's McCarthyism or blacklisting and effectively extortion.

 

[wvmgmidget]

I don't see the connection - surely states/districts/whatever are free to spend or invest as they choose? I just hope that in years to come it's called "The Great Wall of Trump".

Because it would not be in their power to block a firm doing domestic business in another in state. Most, if not all, of these governments also receive federal funding, which could be pulled if they discriminate based on political beliefs.

 

[UKMikey]

I haven't investigated the legalities but you'd think there'd be some rules about the bidding process for government contracts being fair and open to any legal business that meets the qualifications in terms of skills, size and other logistic requirements. If they can discriminate based on a company performing a legal service for another government agency just because they don't like the politics of that agency, that would open up a whole can of political worms so to speak. At it's heart it's McCarthyism or blacklisting and effectively extortion.

Blacklisting I can buy but as far as McCarthyism is concerned I don't understand where the accusations of subversion or treason come in.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Because it would not be in their power to block a firm doing domestic business in another in state. Most, if not all, of these governments also receive federal funding, which could be pulled if they discriminate based on political beliefs.

The whole process of investment in things like pensions is discriminatory - otherwise it wouldn't work. As far as "blocking companies" from council contracts that seems to simply be "a proposal" that nobody has enacted in law?

Beside that... can you demonstrate how it's illegal for a local council to avoid doing business with anybody they don't want to?

 

[Johnnypenso]

Blacklisting I can buy but as far as McCarthyism is concerned I don't understand where the accusations of subversion or treason come in.

Wikipedia

McCarthyism has taken on a broader meaning, describing the excesses of similar efforts. The term is also now used more generally to describe reckless, unsubstantiated accusations, as well as demagogic attacks on the character or patriotism of political adversaries.

 

[DDastardly00]

Why not just have the Army Corps of Engineers build it then? It would be pointless to organize a boycott against them.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Why not just have the Army Corps of Engineers build it then? It would be pointless to organize a boycott against them.

I doubt any president would dare mobilise the army into Southern states. Look at the brouhaha when exercises were held there, the tinpot 'publican armies were convinced that it was part of a Washington takeover.

That aside, I don't think the Army have the production facilities to support this kind of build.

 

[TexRex]

Why not just have the Army Corps of Engineers build it then?

Then the orange one wouldn't be able to tout "his" actions as providing jobs to American companies. Though if this wall is ever erected, I suspect illegals or "outsourced labor" will play a significant part--even if they're Eastern European rather than Latino.

 

[DDastardly00]

I doubt any president would dare mobilise the army into Southern states. Look at the brouhaha when exercises were held there, the tinpot 'publican armies were convinced that it was part of a Washington takeover.

That aside, I don't think the Army have the production facilities to support this kind of build.

Then the orange one wouldn't be able to tout "his" actions as providing jobs to American companies. Though if this wall is ever erected, I suspect illegals or "outsourced labor" will play a significant part--even if they're Eastern European rather than Latino.

Huh, I guess I haven't been keep tabs on this thing at all, it turns out the Army Corps of Engineering is already involved. This NY Times article was published July 18, 2017.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/18/us/politics/border-wall-construction.html

 

[samurai8juice]

I hear the complaints too, must be from the uneducated.

38 billion sounds like a lot, which it is, so people definitely have a right to complain, but those same people fail to realize that the United States runs a yearly deficit of ~650 billion, and will probably be closer to a trillion next year with the new tax cut.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Huh, I guess I haven't been keep tabs on this thing at all, it turns out the Army Corps of Engineering is already involved. This NY Times article was published July 18, 2017.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/18/us/politics/border-wall-construction.html

Can't see what that article says as it's pay-to-read. If it says the same as other articles earlier this year then the Army were involved in advising on costs rather than as a construction force.

38 billion sounds like a lot

It does... at 1,000 miles (the amount Trump wants to extend existing provisions over) that's $24,000 per metre. Even with land acquisition it can't cost that much, surely?

One might think that the money might be better spent on the military or border forces who could cover borders while being mobile, redeployable and tax-paying employees.

 

[Danoff]

Some Americans complain about how we give so much foreign aid to Israel, but, I say somebody has to (and honestly it's just a drop in the pocketbook). If the U.S. didn't support the country, whose to say that any unstable Arab government in the region wouldn't try and take it?

Why does that mean somebody has to give aid to them? Why can we not let an unstable arab government try to take it?

38 billion over 10 years in military aid is a good deal for us as we get plenty in return. Or... we could pull out and drill our own oil, I'm sure that will happen lol.

I hear the complaints too, must be from the uneducated.

How much oil do we import from Israel? Effectively zero?

 

[Johnnypenso]

The whole process of investment in things like pensions is discriminatory - otherwise it wouldn't work. As far as "blocking companies" from council contracts that seems to simply be "a proposal" that nobody has enacted in law?

Beside that... can you demonstrate how it's illegal for a local council to avoid doing business with anybody they don't want to?

I go through the bidding process on city contracts every two years. The City of Windsor, like I presume most cities in Canada would, conforms to the Code of Ethics of the Purchasing Management Association of Canada (P.M.A.C.). In it are provisions such as:

To buy without prejudice, seeking to obtain the maximum value for each dollar of expenditure.

To subscribe to and work for honesty in buying and selling and to denounce all forms of improper business practice

Conformity to the Laws in Terms of: a) The laws of the country in which they practice; b) The Institute’s or Corporation’s Rules and Regulations c) Contractual obligations

This latter provision basically brings all our municipal, provincial and federal laws into effect including various Human Rights Acts, our Constitution etc.

I presume every city has their own codes and standards and most of them have provisions allowing for a fair and ethical, impartial, sealed bid process for contracts.

 

[TexRex]

How much oil do we import from Israel?

I'm given to understand it's actually the opposite, or at the very least that Israel's supply is imported.

Maybe the two actions were unrelated:

we could pull out and drill our own oil

 

[Danoff]

I'm given to understand it's actually the opposite, or at the very least that Israel's supply is imported.

Maybe the two actions were unrelated:

It's a confusing sentiment for sure. Especially since we do, actually, drill for our own oil... like... a few miles from my house. Most of our oil is domestic.

 

[wvmgmidget]

The whole process of investment in things like pensions is discriminatory - otherwise it wouldn't work. As far as "blocking companies" from council contracts that seems to simply be "a proposal" that nobody has enacted in law?

Beside that... can you demonstrate how it's illegal for a local council to avoid doing business with anybody they don't want to?

I was saying if it were enacted as law it would not likely hold up in court. That would mean that a city council could refuse to do business with any firm that goes against its partisan ideology, no matter what the issue was since it would affect a business not an individual.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Most of our oil is domestic.

The US still imports (net) about 1,750,000,000 barrels of oil a year though - that's why the Middle East remains an important trade area for them. Perhaps even Russia in the future

 

[TexRex]

The US still imports (net) about 1,750,000,000 barrels of oil a year though - that's why the Middle East remains an important trade area for them. Perhaps even Russia in the future

While consuming 7,210,000,000 barrels in 2016. Yes, that's a significant percentage, but Israel doesn't figure in that directly. One could argue that unrest in Israel (for the record, I believe that the orange one's statements and actions regarding Jerusalem will lead to more of this) could lead to disruption of that supply, but that's not a direct link.

 

[Danoff]

The US still imports (net) about 1,750,000,000 barrels of oil a year though - that's why the Middle East remains an important trade area for them. Perhaps even Russia in the future

As said above, if anything, Israel gets in the way of oil imports. However, our primary import source is Canada (40% of imports). 4 of the top 5 US oil import sources are in the Americas. Saudi Arabia (11% of imports) is the other one.

Edit:

Just to be clear, if our actions in the middle East were about securing oil imports, pissing off everyone besides Israel doesn't seem like a good strategy.

 

[KungFury]

We produce around half of our own oil for consumption so it's not about blood for oil, it's about controlling the oil exported from the middle east. We can't offset those numbers with our own production and our companies have their fingers in the pie deeply...

The major concern is keeping the global economy stable or more specifically protecting our own interests in the economy. We are not going to allow rogue countries to meddle with pricing and currency used in the oil trade as that could easily destroy the western economy as we know it today.

Israel is very important presence in the middle east to support our troops, that is why we give them military aid and will continue to do so. I don't know if moving our embassy has anything to do with that but why not recognize the true capital as it's been for a very long time already?

 

[TenEightyOne]

why not recognize the true capital as it's been for a very long time already?

Technically it's been the capital of Palestine for longer or, if you ignore the agreements before Israel existed, for exactly the same length of time. I'm not sure what it is about Israeli occupation that's more palatable to the US than Palestinian, Jordanian, Egyptian or Syrian occupation of territories in the area.

 

[Danoff]

We produce around half of our own oil for consumption so it's not about blood for oil, it's about controlling the oil exported from the middle east. We can't offset those numbers with our own production and our companies have their fingers in the pie deeply...

The major concern is keeping the global economy stable or more specifically protecting our own interests in the economy. We are not going to allow rogue countries to meddle with pricing and currency used in the oil trade as that could easily destroy the western economy as we know it today.

So.... that doesn't actually make much sense. The US got along fine with oil prices way higher than they are right now. And we produce more of our own oil right now... so if oil prices go up, our oil companies make huge money, and that money comes into the US (jobs, salaries, taxes, etc). We should want oil prices high, we produce a lot of oil.

Arguing that US oil companies somehow want oil prices low is... confusing.

Israel is very important presence in the middle east to support our troops, that is why we give them military aid and will continue to do so.

Why do we need troops in the middle east?

Technically it's been the capital of Palestine for longer or, if you ignore the agreements before Israel existed, for exactly the same length of time. I'm not sure what it is about Israeli occupation that's more palatable to the US than Palestinian, Jordanian, Egyptian or Syrian occupation of territories in the area.

In this case, I'm much more comfortable with the US recognizing what is than attempting to pass judgment on any notion of what "ought to be", because the latter is not our business and not pretty.

 

[Dennisch]

Why do we need troops in the middle east?

I have seen this comment so many times now. Do Americans even want their troops overseas?