Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
DarkSnowyNight wrote:GalaxyFlyer wrote:DarkSnowyNight wrote:
Sinema will not make it to an election. Obviously, she does not understand what being primaried means, but she will shaking a cup for a living outside the AZ state capital soon enough.
Okay, will someone significantly “left” of Sinema be elected in AZ after she is dumped in a primary? She and other moderates are holding those positions because they know what they need to do to be re-elected.
Firstly, we all need to discharge overboard the fiction that conservatives have any idea what 'moderate' means. She and Manchin are nothing grander than a pair of idiots who refuse to get off the railroad tracks when they hear the whistle blowing.
But most importantly, we need to see things as they actually are. She was elected specifically not to appease an irrelevant and regressive element of society. The issue with that woman is not one of specific political position per se. It is the fact that what was on the box is not what was inside. While this is somewhat typical, she was elected for the express purpose of doing what she is now desperately trying to stand in the way of. And that is exactly how people get primaried. Like just about anyone else who matters, I will not lose sleep when the 15 minutes she traded away any usefulness she might have had fails utterly to protect her from ignominy.
MohawkWeekend wrote:DarkSnowyNight wrote:Sinema will not make it to an election. Obviously, she does not understand what being primaried means, but she will shaking a cup for a living outside the AZ state capital soon enough.
She holds her office until the general election not the primary. So she's in office until the end of 2024
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Senatorial races have primaries. AZ's is usually in August. I believe you are confusing Primary with Mid-Term...
Voters know what “moderate” means and they aren’t seeing in Congress or the President. The Democrats need to move back toward the center
GalaxyFlyer wrote:or face a blow out in 2022, maybe even 2024 if the
GalaxyFlyer wrote:Republicans can remove their heads from the rear ends and pick a conservative.
GalaxyFlyer wrote:That means dump Trump’s personality cult but not some of his salient policies.
MohawkWeekend wrote:This was also a concern of Manchin that the child credit went to people making well over $100k.
FlapOperator wrote:
If the US left was serious about climate change, they would support things like nuclear power.
FlapOperator wrote:
The Founders likely didn't intend for the US to be a massive nanny state.
Aaron747 wrote:
A relatable example: in a company you can realize incredible pace of execution and mission precision when all employees have bought into whatever vision is in vogue. The US is a like a company where all department are siloed, collaboration is fractured, and every manager clutches pearls and plays CYA instead of coordinating and sharing resources.
MohawkWeekend wrote:So exactly what did you mean with this quote?
DarkSnowyNight wrote: Sinema will not make it to an election. Obviously, she does not understand what being primaried means, but she will shaking a cup for a living outside the AZ state capital soon enough.
DarkSnowyNight wrote:In any case, Sinema is regarded by her own constituency with more than a lot of buyer's remorse. As I mentioned, this is not foreign to politics, but her being so loudly dishonest and willfully unfaithful to her donors has ended any chance of securing financing for a campaign, leave alone beating out other Democratic contenders.
DarkSnowyNight wrote:MohawkWeekend wrote:DarkSnowyNight wrote:Sinema will not make it to an election. Obviously, she does not understand what being primaried means, but she will shaking a cup for a living outside the AZ state capital soon enough.
She holds her office until the general election not the primary. So she's in office until the end of 2024GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Senatorial races have primaries. AZ's is usually in August. I believe you are confusing Primary with Mid-Term...
Voters know what “moderate” means and they aren’t seeing in Congress or the President. The Democrats need to move back toward the center
Firstly, an opinion piece is not a reference. And frankly, taking this long to get back on that indicates it was a pretty hard dig. Understandable, of course.
Nextly, again with the definitions... Moderate =/= Centrist. Those are two different things. They overlap occasionally, but that does not make them the same. This is another thing that arch conservatives are frequently observed having a very difficult time grasping.
As it pertains, no, Democrats most certainly do not need to move any further to the right. We have already compromised with the regressives more than anyone ever should have had to, thank you very much. If one cannot cope with having had things that easy, that is the GOP's problem, not ours.
This remains yet another thing the MAGAs are completely incapable of understanding; elections have consequences. When a party spends nearly half a decade being as abusive as possible to a country, it should come as no surprise that their wishes will eventually go ignored. As they should. Understand that Americans do not owe MAGAs anything. If you guys feel disenfranchised while we —very slowly and with a frustrating lack of urgency, no doubt— clean up MAGA's mess, I frankly do not know what to tell you. But the time to include the people who created these problems is in the past.GalaxyFlyer wrote:or face a blow out in 2022, maybe even 2024 if the
MAGA regressives make an awful lot of noise, but that is not the same as having a valid position. Let alone a plurality on any of these things. Americans still remain more or less appalled at things like Jan 6, the juvenile antics Texas is trying to loft, anti-vaxxerism, and the GOP's refusal to account appropriately for themselves. It really will not take much in the way of media saturation to keep the right down.
For our part, Democrats have finally gotten the message that we more or less cannot lose so long as we show up. That was a weakness in 2016. The absolute curb-stomp the GOP absorbed in 2018 and last year should have made it clear by now that we have shored that up.
As well, there are 20 Republicans but only 14 Democrats up for the Senate in 2022's election. With that amount of exposure, expecting any sort of win is somewhere between optimistic and outright Fan Fiction.
Make no mistake, we still have problems of our own —literally the topic of this thread— but that is for us to work on...GalaxyFlyer wrote:Republicans can remove their heads from the rear ends and pick a conservative.
The GOP literally endorses people like DeSantis, Santorum, Abbot, et al. I join almost everyone I know when I shudder at the thought what sort of Hun could possibly be to the right of that ilk...GalaxyFlyer wrote:That means dump Trump’s personality cult but not some of his salient policies.
The personality cult was the problem, and it prevented completely an otherwise unremarkable presidency from remaining so. Not everything 45 did was wrong. That administration's stance on China, for example, has been and will remain relatively unchanged. For a lot of good reasons.
But he will not be remembered for that...MohawkWeekend wrote:This was also a concern of Manchin that the child credit went to people making well over $100k.
Ideally, there should not be any child credit, unless specific educational expenses can be proven. But I also know that this is hardly the time for Manchin to take his ego for a walk...FlapOperator wrote:
If the US left was serious about climate change, they would support things like nuclear power.
This is not the only example, but things like this are why education is as important as it is. The lack of understanding behind nuclear power is particularly vexing, as it is not even a difficult science to learn. But here we are...FlapOperator wrote:
The Founders likely didn't intend for the US to be a massive nanny state.
Why do we care about this? They come from an era that was more or less incompatible to ours.Aaron747 wrote:
A relatable example: in a company you can realize incredible pace of execution and mission precision when all employees have bought into whatever vision is in vogue. The US is a like a company where all department are siloed, collaboration is fractured, and every manager clutches pearls and plays CYA instead of coordinating and sharing resources.
FGITD wrote:DarkSnowyNight wrote:In any case, Sinema is regarded by her own constituency with more than a lot of buyer's remorse. As I mentioned, this is not foreign to politics, but her being so loudly dishonest and willfully unfaithful to her donors has ended any chance of securing financing for a campaign, leave alone beating out other Democratic contenders.
She’s a political con job, and it should concern all sides of the spectrum. This time she pulled one over on democrats, but there’s absolutely nothing to stop it happening to republicans. All you have to do is campaign the right way, say the right things, and in you go. Then once you’re in…no accountability for then turning your back on every single thing you campaigned on. Sure you might not get re-elected, but who cares, you’ve made good money, left your mark, and off to some private gig you go.
Republicans should arguably be more worried because their base tends to be more narrowly focused on certain issues. Go to a deep red state and run the God, Guns, and Abortion campaign and people will eat it up. Then once you get in…oops turns out I’m more Democrat than I thought!
FlapOperator wrote:The Founders intended the Senate precisely to be a place where legislation dies.
The Founders likely didn't intend for the US to be a massive nanny state.
Dutchy wrote:FlapOperator wrote:The Founders intended the Senate precisely to be a place where legislation dies.
The Founders likely didn't intend for the US to be a massive nanny state.
So the founders of the US wanted it to remain locked in the mid-eighteen hundreds? Inflexible to react to challenges they could not have imagined? I can hardly imagine that the founders would be so inflexible and so ridiculously lack of vision for the future.
As a person from the outside, looking in, it is quite strange to see a country that is so inflexible in its legislation. The constitution is like a bible for orthodox Christians. It is the word of the founders and can't be changed (or very difficult at least) and you have some high priest (the supreme court) who interprets the meaning of the texts, written down centuries ago.
FlapOperator wrote:Oh, and for those scoring at home...the military received a 2.9% pay raise, while it was 5.7% (IIRC) for Social Security in an economy with something like a 6.3% core rate of inflation, at least.
GalaxyFlyer wrote:The rich lost their SALT deduction, so there’s that. Nothing in BBB would do anything the least meaningful for climate warming—maybe 0.0001%.
FlapOperator wrote:Newark727 wrote:If we're going to stop the polarization and absolutism of American politics, centrism has to stand for something besides "conspicuously refusing to solve problems," and the Senate has to be something more than the place where legislation goes to die. Has Manchin got anything to offer us beside "no" votes?
The Founders intended the Senate precisely to be a place where legislation dies.
The Founders likely didn't intend for the US to be a massive nanny state.
Dutchy wrote:FlapOperator wrote:The Founders intended the Senate precisely to be a place where legislation dies.
The Founders likely didn't intend for the US to be a massive nanny state.
So the founders of the US wanted it to remain locked in the mid-eighteen hundreds? Inflexible to react to challenges they could not have imagined? I can hardly imagine that the founders would be so inflexible and so ridiculously lack of vision for the future.
As a person from the outside, looking in, it is quite strange to see a country that is so inflexible in its legislation. The constitution is like a bible for orthodox Christians. It is the word of the founders and can't be changed (or very difficult at least) and you have some high priest (the supreme court) who interprets the meaning of the texts, written down centuries ago.
GalaxyFlyer wrote:Today’s WSJ has an article US household durable goods spending is up 45% over 2018, while the EU’s household spending is up 3%. Too much money chasing too few goods equals inflation the government can’t fix without pain.
mxaxai wrote:GalaxyFlyer wrote:Today’s WSJ has an article US household durable goods spending is up 45% over 2018, while the EU’s household spending is up 3%. Too much money chasing too few goods equals inflation the government can’t fix without pain.
The US military budget is four times higher than that of the EU, the unemployment rate in the US is two thirds of the EU's rate, the US S&P 500 stock index has outperformed the stoxx EU 600 index in the past year, the average income in the US is higher than that of any EU country but one. US citizens - on average - own larger homes, drive larger cars, fly more often and further and eat more meat. They have access to the highest ranked universities and some of the best health care. There are more billionaires in the US than anywhere else.
Really, the US is outperforming any other country by any metric. There's nothing that needs fixing.
GalaxyFlyer wrote:FGITD wrote:DarkSnowyNight wrote:In any case, Sinema is regarded by her own constituency with more than a lot of buyer's remorse. As I mentioned, this is not foreign to politics, but her being so loudly dishonest and willfully unfaithful to her donors has ended any chance of securing financing for a campaign, leave alone beating out other Democratic contenders.
She’s a political con job, and it should concern all sides of the spectrum. This time she pulled one over on democrats, but there’s absolutely nothing to stop it happening to republicans. All you have to do is campaign the right way, say the right things, and in you go. Then once you’re in…no accountability for then turning your back on every single thing you campaigned on. Sure you might not get re-elected, but who cares, you’ve made good money, left your mark, and off to some private gig you go.
Republicans should arguably be more worried because their base tends to be more narrowly focused on certain issues. Go to a deep red state and run the God, Guns, and Abortion campaign and people will eat it up. Then once you get in…oops turns out I’m more Democrat than I thought!
Sinema isn’t a con job, she joined the Blue Dog Democrat coalition as a Representative—should be blindingly obvious she’s not anything but a centrist Democrat from a red-ish state.
mxaxai wrote:GalaxyFlyer wrote:Today’s WSJ has an article US household durable goods spending is up 45% over 2018, while the EU’s household spending is up 3%. Too much money chasing too few goods equals inflation the government can’t fix without pain.
The US military budget is four times higher than that of the EU, the unemployment rate in the US is two thirds of the EU's rate, the US S&P 500 stock index has outperformed the stoxx EU 600 index in the past year, the average income in the US is higher than that of any EU country but one. US citizens - on average - own larger homes, drive larger cars, fly more often and further and eat more meat. They have access to the highest ranked universities and some of the best health care. There are more billionaires in the US than anywhere else.
Really, the US is outperforming any other country by any metric. There's nothing that needs fixing.
GalaxyFlyer wrote:The Nordic countries are much more homogenous than the US, much higher trust levels which has big knock-on effects. There’s a huge difference between governing 5 million, mostly agreeable people, than 325 million of a 100 or more ethnicities.
Aaron747 wrote:The complex layering of jurisdictions also guarantees government effectiveness is limited in all but the most moonshot circumstances.
Dutchy wrote:
And I thought the US was outperforming the rest of the world on one aspect: the number of incarcerated people per capita.
M564038 wrote:Good points!
The word of the founders combined with a wild west attitude where everyone must fend for themselves and their family(as shown in the gun cult) No tradition or real culture, only money and power.
FlapOperator wrote:M564038 wrote:Good points!
The word of the founders combined with a wild west attitude where everyone must fend for themselves and their family(as shown in the gun cult) No tradition or real culture, only money and power.
During the period from 1800 to the present, which European nations were existent from that moment onward, uninterrupted with their current existent form of government, in their current geopolitical form?
I can think of three or six, only one of which is a G-7 nation, one mid grade power and the others microstates.
FlapOperator wrote:Aaron747 wrote:The complex layering of jurisdictions also guarantees government effectiveness is limited in all but the most moonshot circumstances.
"Effectiveness" is a loaded and I'd argue meaningless term. Politically speaking, you're thinking of the term Subsidiarity, defined as "the principle that a central authority should have a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks which cannot be performed at a more local level." Interestingly, Subsidiarity is de jure part of the European Union legal canon (the de facto element is another debate.)
Subsidiarity also means that there is likely far more representation/direct participation for the majority of matters like school boards, water boards, state legislatures and county sheriffs than would be found in classic Westminster system. You take the good with the bad.
The original Westminster system is trending toward local devolution, interestingly enough.
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
US, UK, Sweden, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Virtually every other nation either didn’t exist, was a colony or was fought over / invaded since 1900. The US and UK fought a lot of wars in the 19th century, at least two with each other.
According to the union, elements of the bill that would help coal industry workers include tax incentives to encourage clean-energy companies to build facilities in coalfields; an extension of fees paid by coal companies to workers who contract Black Lung; and financial penalties for companies that block their workforce from unionizing.
WA707atMSP wrote:seb146 wrote:ltbewr wrote:To me the decision of Sen. Mancin in his own words and other reasons have several elements.
While many people would benefit from the BBB bill, no one wants to pay for it or continue to increase the massive national debt.
Many who would pay for it see some parts as encouraging people not getting jobs, being 'lazy', more dependence on the Federal government especially other than White European decedent persons.
For some benefits the Federal government would only pay part of them, states would have to put up some funds and/or the staffing to carry them out with its costs and no way do any of those state politicians want to raise taxes to do so.
Just too much in the bill, including dealing with immigration in ways many find unacceptable. Break up the elements of this bill bundle and vote on them in smaller groups that would likely pass like the subsidies and price regulations on diabetes drugs.
It is being paid for by those wealthiest Americans by repealing the Republican 2017 tax cut. That tax cut was not replaced with anything.
Manchin should just stop pretending he is a Democrat. He has not been for a long time. Swap him out for one of the RINOs who voted for impeachment the second time.
I agree that Manchin is a DINO.
However, the wealthy are definitely NOT paying their fair share in this bill. Reinstating the SALT deduction will probably lower the tax burden for wealthy taxpayers, at least if you live in a place like Atherton, Brentwood, or Central Park South where lots of Democratic campaign donors live.
seb146 wrote:WA707atMSP wrote:seb146 wrote:
It is being paid for by those wealthiest Americans by repealing the Republican 2017 tax cut. That tax cut was not replaced with anything.
Manchin should just stop pretending he is a Democrat. He has not been for a long time. Swap him out for one of the RINOs who voted for impeachment the second time.
I agree that Manchin is a DINO.
However, the wealthy are definitely NOT paying their fair share in this bill. Reinstating the SALT deduction will probably lower the tax burden for wealthy taxpayers, at least if you live in a place like Atherton, Brentwood, or Central Park South where lots of Democratic campaign donors live.
It lowers taxes on people making less than $400,000 per year. A huge number of those living in West Virginia will now have a larger tax bill because of their Senator.
BTW, he also negotiated the bill down from $6 trillion saying "I'll vote for it if you just cut out this and that" but still didn't. He lied. The people of West Virginia should be outraged and calling him because they will not see any extra money and because he lied. He was not negotiating in good faith. This bill would probably pass if Democrats would negotiate with two Republicans who we all know would negotiate in good faith.
NIKV69 wrote:GalaxyFlyer wrote:FGITD wrote:
She’s a political con job, and it should concern all sides of the spectrum. This time she pulled one over on democrats, but there’s absolutely nothing to stop it happening to republicans. All you have to do is campaign the right way, say the right things, and in you go. Then once you’re in…no accountability for then turning your back on every single thing you campaigned on. Sure you might not get re-elected, but who cares, you’ve made good money, left your mark, and off to some private gig you go.
Republicans should arguably be more worried because their base tends to be more narrowly focused on certain issues. Go to a deep red state and run the God, Guns, and Abortion campaign and people will eat it up. Then once you get in…oops turns out I’m more Democrat than I thought!
Sinema isn’t a con job, she joined the Blue Dog Democrat coalition as a Representative—should be blindingly obvious she’s not anything but a centrist Democrat from a red-ish state.
Exactly, as I alluded to before whenever the far left of the Dem party suffers a loss they lash out usually with knee jerk reactions. They don’t and won’t understand how the moderate members of their party feel or think. So instead of having a good dialogue they run to the first Microphone they can find in the hallway at the capital and start the mud slinging. It’s why nothing is getting done and why nothing will get done until they stop this media driven dog and pony show.
seb146 wrote:WA707atMSP wrote:seb146 wrote:
It is being paid for by those wealthiest Americans by repealing the Republican 2017 tax cut. That tax cut was not replaced with anything.
Manchin should just stop pretending he is a Democrat. He has not been for a long time. Swap him out for one of the RINOs who voted for impeachment the second time.
I agree that Manchin is a DINO.
However, the wealthy are definitely NOT paying their fair share in this bill. Reinstating the SALT deduction will probably lower the tax burden for wealthy taxpayers, at least if you live in a place like Atherton, Brentwood, or Central Park South where lots of Democratic campaign donors live.
It lowers taxes on people making less than $400,000 per year. A huge number of those living in West Virginia will now have a larger tax bill because of their Senator.
BTW, he also negotiated the bill down from $6 trillion saying "I'll vote for it if you just cut out this and that" but still didn't. He lied. The people of West Virginia should be outraged and calling him because they will not see any extra money and because he lied. He was not negotiating in good faith. This bill would probably pass if Democrats would negotiate with two Republicans who we all know would negotiate in good faith.
GalaxyFlyer wrote:seb146 wrote:WA707atMSP wrote:
I agree that Manchin is a DINO.
However, the wealthy are definitely NOT paying their fair share in this bill. Reinstating the SALT deduction will probably lower the tax burden for wealthy taxpayers, at least if you live in a place like Atherton, Brentwood, or Central Park South where lots of Democratic campaign donors live.
It lowers taxes on people making less than $400,000 per year. A huge number of those living in West Virginia will now have a larger tax bill because of their Senator.
BTW, he also negotiated the bill down from $6 trillion saying "I'll vote for it if you just cut out this and that" but still didn't. He lied. The people of West Virginia should be outraged and calling him because they will not see any extra money and because he lied. He was not negotiating in good faith. This bill would probably pass if Democrats would negotiate with two Republicans who we all know would negotiate in good faith.
WV residents are among the least to benefit from raising the SALT deduction cap. You know who benefits? The wealthiest taxpayers in Blue states, not the median taxpayers, the wealthiest who like to donate to a particular party.
https://taxfoundation.org/salt-deductio ... ap-repeal/
Create a new surcharge on modified adjusted gross income (MAGI), defined as adjusted gross income less investment interest expense, equal to 5 percent on MAGI in excess of $10 million plus 3 percent on MAGI above $25 million.
bhill wrote:Yes, but WHY did he vote no?
As a former vice chair of the West Virginia Democratic Party, I was surprised by Manchin’s move. Build Back Better showers benefits on West Virginia. The bill gives 95 percent of West Virginians a tax cut. It extends policies projected to lift 43 percent of West Virginia’s poor children out of poverty—a stunning accomplishment. Build Back Better includes vital help for coal miners with black lung. The law’s focus on expanding health care and childcare in a state where many children are raised by their grandparents because of the opioid crisis make it an absolute godsend for families. Despite what Manchin says, it is an easy vote to explain back home.
Killing Build Back Better—reports since Sunday indicate that maybe it isn’t quite dead yet—doesn’t just jeopardize billions of dollars that would have flowed into West Virginia. It seriously compromises Manchin’s own political prospects. A loss of Senate control in 2022 by Democrats would make Manchin a powerless ranking member, likely for the rest of his Senate career. A failure to pass Biden’s signature bill makes that loss of control more likely.
Similarly, a party switch is not practical because even the most right-leaning Democrat in the Senate is not nearly far right enough to win a GOP primary in a Trump +39 state. The Republican nomination will go to someone like Representative Alex Mooney, a hard-right conservative who voted against certifying Trump’s loss in the election.
ltbewr wrote:The removal of the SALT deduction under Pres. Trump was supposed to be offset by the higher standard/base family deduction. Problem is if you live in a state with high local property and state income taxes like CA, MA, NY, NJ (I live in NJ), that offset was no where near enough especially for many middle and working class families who owned their own home in those and other states. That meant paying net higher Federal and possibly State income taxes. The SALT deduction should be reinstated but with a reverse progressive value as income levels go up to $200,000 for a single person and $300,000 for a family and no SALT deduction after that level of all income.
LCDFlight wrote:ltbewr wrote:The removal of the SALT deduction under Pres. Trump was supposed to be offset by the higher standard/base family deduction. Problem is if you live in a state with high local property and state income taxes like CA, MA, NY, NJ (I live in NJ), that offset was no where near enough especially for many middle and working class families who owned their own home in those and other states. That meant paying net higher Federal and possibly State income taxes. The SALT deduction should be reinstated but with a reverse progressive value as income levels go up to $200,000 for a single person and $300,000 for a family and no SALT deduction after that level of all income.
I have heard the story that removing the SALT exemption resulted in people paying “higher” federal taxes in states with high local taxes. For example, Massachusetts.
As far as I can tell, this story is incorrect. Well, yes, it may be higher than people in certain states USED to pay; but it is not higher than people in OTHER states pay. It makes federal tax rates equal across the states.
With no SALT exemption, a person making $250,000 pays the same federal income tax in Florida or Massachusetts (let’s say 30%, or $75,000). But with an exemption, the Massachusetts person will pay a significantly lower federal tax rate than the person in Florida. Suddenly the Massachusetts federal payment falls to say 25% or $62,500. I don’t think it is necessarily obvious why Massachusetts should have lower federal income tax rates than Florida.
casinterest wrote:LCDFlight wrote:ltbewr wrote:The removal of the SALT deduction under Pres. Trump was supposed to be offset by the higher standard/base family deduction. Problem is if you live in a state with high local property and state income taxes like CA, MA, NY, NJ (I live in NJ), that offset was no where near enough especially for many middle and working class families who owned their own home in those and other states. That meant paying net higher Federal and possibly State income taxes. The SALT deduction should be reinstated but with a reverse progressive value as income levels go up to $200,000 for a single person and $300,000 for a family and no SALT deduction after that level of all income.
I have heard the story that removing the SALT exemption resulted in people paying “higher” federal taxes in states with high local taxes. For example, Massachusetts.
As far as I can tell, this story is incorrect. Well, yes, it may be higher than people in certain states USED to pay; but it is not higher than people in OTHER states pay. It makes federal tax rates equal across the states.
With no SALT exemption, a person making $250,000 pays the same federal income tax in Florida or Massachusetts (let’s say 30%, or $75,000). But with an exemption, the Massachusetts person will pay a significantly lower federal tax rate than the person in Florida. Suddenly the Massachusetts federal payment falls to say 25% or $62,500. I don’t think it is necessarily obvious why Massachusetts should have lower federal income tax rates than Florida.
Not sure where you get this comparison from. Everyone knew that SALT mostly benefited high income high tax states. It is a curve though that is marginalized by income level.
FlapOperator wrote:M564038 wrote:Good points!
The word of the founders combined with a wild west attitude where everyone must fend for themselves and their family(as shown in the gun cult) No tradition or real culture, only money and power.
During the period from 1800 to the present, which European nations were existent from that moment onward, uninterrupted with their current existent form of government, in their current geopolitical form?
I can think of three or six, only one of which is a G-7 nation, one mid grade power and the others microstates.
emperortk wrote:Yeah, we were a democracy in the 18th century while most of Europe was still run by royalty. Now, any royalty left are just figureheads and most of Europe is a democracy. I'd say that we got it right well before all you "civilized' people.FlapOperator wrote:M564038 wrote:Good points!
The word of the founders combined with a wild west attitude where everyone must fend for themselves and their family(as shown in the gun cult) No tradition or real culture, only money and power.
During the period from 1800 to the present, which European nations were existent from that moment onward, uninterrupted with their current existent form of government, in their current geopolitical form?
I can think of three or six, only one of which is a G-7 nation, one mid grade power and the others microstates.
Yeah, it's great that the US is fumbling through the 21st century with the 18th century's finest government.
GalaxyFlyer wrote:Not much good to say about being invaded, colonized or borders changed by forcibly by treaty, but getting a new government might be one of the good things. We produce 22% of the global GDP with 5% of the population, have immigrants clamoring to reach our shores or airports, and are still the superpower everybody looks to in a global emergency. A lot of ruin here, but somehow after screwing up, we press on regardless.
johns624 wrote:Yeah, we were a democracy in the 18th century while most of Europe was still run by royalty. Now, any royalty left are just figureheads and most of Europe is a democracy. I'd say that we got it right well before all you "civilized' people.