The US and sidekick Israel vote against so much that comes up in the UN. You could actually make the case that America shouldn't be a world power based solely on its voting record, a lot of good stuff could've happened in the UN if not for America. Plus I'm pretty sure America owes the UN a lot of money or something. So you know that undercuts it.
I think America is way behind in it's global ethic. Trying to help people personally is so 90's. The new world needs a less active approach, with more focus on communication and better spending of the money afforded to them. The EU may be weak, futile and sometimes even counter-intuitive, but it's responsiveness is second to (china) none.
I think America should become an agrarian society with wind and solar farms, maybe some tidal farms as well. Maybe, eventually we'll be able to produce viable fusion or even harness the power of lightning strikes. But, as it is, America, is bloated and inefficient and consumes a considerable amount of resources without thought or consequence of the future.
Grif, you're the kind of person they should be getting rid of in Rusty's ideal. Your eating up money and resources for your own quality of life.
Believe it or not I'm less of a consumer than most. I drive a car that gets better gas mileage than most (bear in mind I live in Texas so that's not saying a lot). I recycle just about everything, and my electricity is wind powered. I'm working on a prototype green roof at school, and most of the food I eat is locally grown (also the Frito Lay company is based near Fort Worth). I also actually fix things instead of buying a new one. So yes I may have money, but I do actually take care in what I do.
/me Has not read full thread as he has no time and is just going to add his two cents. I think that the only reason we step in so much is because if we don't, no one else will. *Shrug*
I'd say that its the people that have 8 kids and live off of social benefits all their life. Whoever suggested England as the new world power, you are dumb. The English government is spineless, ignorant and irresponsible. Also I wouldn't want to live in a nanny state.
Were also greedy, but atleast we aren't corrupt? The point is, we do quite a lot considering how little resources we have left to compete with in the world economy. And in my opinion pensions have a greater impact than benefits. In my mind we should go back to the old days, pull out all of the cash from pensions and spread the wealth. Have the government re-invest in propery firms and drop mortgage and fuel prices exponentially. Old people will have a warm home to live in, along with their free medical and meals on wheels. And okay Grif you have proven your keep, you can stay in America.
But I don't like it here. The House has just become Republican, meaning that a lot of environmental legislature will be blocked or removed.
As much as I dislike the thought, the only real way for America to get a little economic bandaid would be for another war as large scale and pointlessly destructive as WWI, so the US would become a creditor, rather than a debtor. Only this time around we would actually lower tariffs so other countries could make money to repay us, unlike WWI when we raised tariffs and debtor nations could not make money to repay us. I'm kind of counting on China and Korea for this one.
I'd rather make sure people have jobs and can eat than saving the trees. Yes trees give us oxygen, but jobs supercede trees. [br][/br]Edited by merge: I doubt a war could actually jumpstart anything. If you look back to WWII, which was where the U.S. actually came out of the depression, you'll notice that prior to the war, we were mostly an agricultural nation, with some major industrial centers. After the war, we became a heavily industrialized nation. We produced. There isn't anything to produce, we've sapped our potential. So, we've moved to a service oriented society, but since we mostly consume without producing our economy was bound to implode. So, we either revert back to an agrarian society and start heavily investing in alternative means or die.
I was going to point that out. The congressional group on global warming research (or something) was shutdown by some Republicans recently. The guy who spearheaded, John Boehner, is known for his anti-climate change stance. I think we are getting off topic...
I have nothing against cats and I don't condone animal abuse, but if you're going to equate a human life with that of animal, you're ****ed in the head. Animals are inferior.