Is America in decline?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Billy86

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The thing there though is -and I am assuming here- that the Mother Jones one was using the criteria of 'four or more people being killed' - which is not a mass shooting. That is, by FBI definition, a mass killing. While there is no exact definition for a mass shooting, it makes sense to apply the mass killing criteria to be used with shootings taking the place of killings. To entirely and exclusively apply the definition of 'mass killings' to something different doesn't make any sense.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Billy86

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Oh it definitely has been declining don't get me wrong, was just pointing out the reason for such a large discrepancy (4 vs 355 incidents).

KingBrian2

Tony EH wrote: »

While the topic title can be open to hyperbole, it's most certainly not without reason that people, both inside and outside America would be of the opinion that the country, as a whole, is in a decline. Certainly as an empire, it's influence is contracting. But, as a nation internally there's more to look back at than there is to look forward to for far, far too many of its people.

Take a walk around Detroit and you'll witness the slow death of an entire city. Go to a "successful" city like San Francisco and see the most depraved poverty on every single street corner. People in $10,000 suits waltz by old women reaching into bins for last nights pizza and care nothing for them. My cousin in New York sent me a photo recently of a Brooklyn apartment going for rent at a paltry $3000 a month! The shape of things to come in a city that already sees the children of families who have been New Yorkers all of their lives having to move ridiculous distances away from their family, just so they can afford a house. That kind of trend is unsustainable.

America has definitely been on a decline since the 70's, there's no doubt and a lot of people from there will tell you so. Where once it was, for example, a manufacturing giant, providing good jobs for people so that they could raise a family and put a roof over their heads, it now boasts a depressingly large number of working poor, whose miserable existences are characterised by having to work multiple jobs, just to pay a rent. Income inequality is one of the worst in the world.

If one is to look at America's "golden age" during the 50's and compare it to today, it really does paint a very sorry picture in a lot of people's eyes.

Don't forget the Hollywoodization of America for the China market. Independent and blockbuster films of the 70's & 80's are far superior to today's crap which is disappointing. Thankfully today's movies are better than their 50's and 60's comparisons. I realize this is subject to taste but you will find many will agree with me on this.

Come on who wants to watch those horrible CGI flicks.

Sand

Tony EH wrote: »

If one is to look at America's "golden age" during the 50's and compare it to today, it really does paint a very sorry picture in a lot of people's eyes.

I don't think the 1950s were all that much better. Institutionalised racism was rife, open and brazen and even mild resistance to it was met with violence, murder and lynchings. America faced a Soviet Empire which threatened it with nuclear warfare and a massive invasion of Europe, leading the US to massively increase their own nuclear weapons as a result. The US suffered reverses in the Korean War and a Communist takeover of Cuba. McCarthy was a paranoid lunatic, leading witch-hunts completely unthinkable in the US of today.

The past is always more certain and fixed than the present. But the vast majority of Americans would prefer to live in the America of 2016 over and above the America of the 1950s.

Sand

Sand wrote: »

I don't think the 1950s were all that much better. Institutionalised racism was rife, open and brazen and even mild resistance to it was met with violence, murder and lynchings. America faced a Soviet Empire which threatened it with nuclear warfare and a massive invasion of Europe, leading the US to massively increase their own nuclear weapons as a result. The US suffered reverses in the Korean War and a Communist takeover of Cuba. McCarthy was a paranoid lunatic, leading witch-hunts completely unthinkable in the US of today.

The past is always more certain and fixed than the present. But the vast majority of Americans would prefer to live in the America of 2016 over and above the America of the 1950s.

I sometimes wonder how much of what we consider to be the threat of the Soviet Union was true, and how much was US propaganda? Don't get me wrong. I would consider the Soviet Union to have been a major threat (As I would think Russia of today) but how much of that threat was encouraged and promoted by the US to help their own influence to spread. It's not as if the US wanted Europe to be strong militarily/economically or... to be looking beyond Europe in terms of diplomatic influence.

The point is that when we look at movies/media of the Era it shows America as the superpower capable to beating the Soviet Union... and after the fall of the Soviet Union, we saw that the Russian juggernaut wasn't as powerful as most people thought. How much aggression came from America with the paranoid Soviets responding? After all, a lot of American economic success came from its military development, so how interested in actual peace would they have been?

InTheTrees

Deleted User wrote: »

I sometimes wonder how much of what we consider to be the threat of the Soviet Union was true, and how much was US propaganda? Don't get me wrong. I would consider the Soviet Union to have been a major threat (As I would think Russia of today) but how much of that threat was encouraged and promoted by the US to help their own influence to spread.

There was the Iron Curtain. The borders across Europe were closed from the soviet side to keep their people in.

Propaganda? There was probably a fair amount. But there was also press access to the east and life there was pretty well documented.

BoJack Horseman

Deleted User wrote: »

when we look at movies of the Era it shows America as the superpower capable to beating the Soviet Union

Example?

(nuclear dramas excluded cos global nuclear annihilation is not "beating" anyone)

Billy86

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Example?

(nuclear dramas excluded cos global nuclear annihilation is not "beating" anyone)

Sorry, couldn't resist it!

Tony EH

Deleted User wrote: »

I sometimes wonder how much of what we consider to be the threat of the Soviet Union was true, and how much was US propaganda?

Agreed.

Russia was the whipping boy for American propaganda for decades. Even before WWII, it was Russia that was seen/used as the great enemy. A tool to rally the people and get them to do what you wanted. It was very effective. A lot of Americans don't even know the difference between a Socialist and a Communist and possess an irrational fear of both.

They got a temporary reprieve so they could be used as bullet fodder to defeat the Germans. But were then relegated back to their original status when that use was at an end in 1945.

I don't really believe that at any point Russia would have even attempted a nuclear conflict with America, despite all the trash talk. Because neither side was interested in the (near) total annihilation that would follow. But, that kind of talk about a country that few really knew about, was always useful. An "enemy" is always good for the power structure to use to frighten its populace. That formula still exists. It's just, by and large, a different enemy these days. Or multiple enemies, each to taken off the shelf for whatever are the needs of the day.

Tony EH

Sand wrote: »

I don't think the 1950s were all that much better.

People are getting too hung up on the 50's thing and missing the overall point which is a lot of Americans are looking back than looking forward.

I only used the 50's as an example of an America that looked forward. It had come out of the war unscathed, was the leading superpower, had toppled British influence globally and relegated her to second fiddle. The 50's, or post war era had seen America cement her position in the world. The war made America and the future was bright.

Pick another time if you want.

Today, a lot of Americans seem to be fearful of the future. They know the ship is unsteady and they don't trust the hands on the tiller.

Dohnjoe

Tony EH wrote: »

I don't really believe that at any point Russia would have even attempted a nuclear conflict with America, despite all the trash talk.

Both superpowers were locked in an ideological conflict, engaged in heavy propaganda and fighting proxy wars in which millions died. The threat of irreversible escalation was very real and incidents such as the Cuban missile crisis show how close we came to the brink.

Dohnjoe

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Both superpowers were locked in an ideological conflict, engaged in heavy propaganda and fighting proxy wars in which millions died. The threat of irreversible escalation was very real and incidents such as the Cuban missile crisis show how close we came to the brink.

Doesn't the US have nuclear missiles in military bases in Turkey and Germany? Strange how unreasonable missiles in Cuba are but it's totally acceptable to have nukes in countries provided by the US.

Tony EH

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Both superpowers were locked in an ideological conflict, engaged in heavy propaganda and fighting proxy wars in which millions died. The threat of irreversible escalation was very real and incidents such as the Cuban missile crisis show how close we came to the brink.

Even the Cuban missile crisis was far from the brink. In the end it was little more than a pissing contest.

Sure, both sides had their global "interests" which usually involved war of some description. But nuclear war was never really on the cards. There were definitely those on either side who were ready to push the button. Le May was advocating dropping bombs on Korea, but was brushed aside by Truman. The cooler heads prevailed all the time, because the outcome was obvious and neither side wanted it.

The greatest and most realistic danger that nuclear weapons presented was the "fail safe" scenario, described by Burdick and Wheeler, whereby one nation would have accidentally used a part of their arsenal, leading to a situation that could result in tit-for-tat endgame. But a deliberate strike was never really in the running.

BoJack Horseman

Deleted User wrote: »

Doesn't the US have nuclear missiles in military bases in Turkey and Germany?

Turkey & Italy had Jupiter Missiles back in the day.... but long since withdrawn.

All superseded by the ICBM, which made proximity an irrelevance.

BoJack Horseman

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Turkey & Italy had Jupiter Missiles back in the day.... but long since withdrawn.

All superseded by the ICBM, which made proximity an irrelevance.

I wouldn't have thought the idea of launching nukes from bombers, subs or other platforms were irrelevant. ICBM's are very noticable, where other platforms provided a first strike ability that were harder to detect (and counter).

BoJack Horseman

Deleted User wrote: »

I wouldn't have thought the idea of launching nukes from bombers, subs or other platforms were irrelevant

Well, they were also treaty banned.

But tactically having your nukes within range of those you are pointing them at leaves them extremely vulnerable, as was the case in Turkey & Cuba.

Whereas a submarine can hide in the millions of square miles of ocean & launch from safety & once it reaches space, interception becomes quite difficult.

Also, I didn't mention bombers, I was referring to the missiles/MRBMs you mentioned.

Permabear

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yeah, I agree that the world's best doctors are based there, after all that's where the most money can be made.

I am sure others thought they had good health cover as well.

Until they needed it and were subsequently dropped

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/17/business/fi-rescind17

Still, in the pursuit of making money (why would health insurers cover sick people?), I guess all fair in love and war life

Dohnjoe

Deleted User wrote: »

Doesn't the US have nuclear missiles in military bases in Turkey and Germany? Strange how unreasonable missiles in Cuba are but it's totally acceptable to have nukes in countries provided by the US.

Geopolitics doesn't work to some sort of playground "fairness" formula

The threat of nuclear warfare was very real, primarily through accidental launch or isolated incident or a sever escalation
Here's one example
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Arkhipov

Dohnjoe

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Geopolitics doesn't work to some sort of playground "fairness" formula

I wasn't suggesting that it did. Rather that the perception that the West (including Americans themselves) have of the US (1940's-1990's) is somewhat flawed. That there has been a definite propaganda campaign to boost the threats to democracy to encourage western support of US foreign policy.

The threat of nuclear warfare was very real, primarily through accidental launch or isolated incident or a sever escalation
Here's one example
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Arkhipov

Again. I don't believe I suggested that it wasn't an actual threat.

Dohnjoe

Deleted User wrote: »

I wasn't suggesting that it did. Rather that the perception that the West (including Americans themselves) have of the US (1940's-1990's) is somewhat flawed. That there has been a definite propaganda campaign to boost the threats to democracy to encourage western support of US foreign policy.

In respect to the Cold War, in the "court of public opinion" the Soviets and their system were seen as worse. Much of it wasn't propaganda, just an obvious reality.

When you have people literally climbing over barbed wire and risking death to escape a system, you know there's something inherently wrong.

As for perceptions of X or Y country - we have facts, metrics and figures - and as is clear from this thread, public sentiment can offer differ from reality

Amerika

Of course America is in decline. We’re spending ourselves into oblivion on nothing that promotes a better future. But neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton will be able to stop it from further decline with the current political environment. Hillary Clinton will be nothing more than an Obama third term. Trump has some good ideas but is not politically savvy in how to get things done in Washington. It will take some future great leader who is capable of getting the parties to work together for the betterment of the country, and get the people behind some real change.

We have to realize immigration is necessary, but we need to shed ourselves of the low-skilled immigrants we now attract and bring in more high-skilled immigration who would typically be younger and thereby easing the strain on our socialistic programs like Social Security, Welfare and Medicare. We would need to change the attitudes of people from all income levels in order to promote domestic investments, but that takes reforming the financial system, improving government regulations, changing the tax code, and spending more on infrastructure, truly viable research on cost effective solutions to energy challenges, and a focus on technology, engineering, math and science education.

Dohnjoe

Dohnjoe wrote: »

In respect to the Cold War, in the "court of public opinion" the Soviets and their system were seen as worse. Much of it wasn't propaganda, just an obvious reality.

When you have people literally climbing over barbed wire and risking death to escape a system, you know there's something inherently wrong.

As for perceptions of X or Y country - we have facts, metrics and figures - and as is clear from this thread, public sentiment can offer differ from reality

Again... I didn't suggest otherwise.

You keep throwing in objections that I haven't commented on. I didn't say that the Soviet Union was Utopia. I didn't even comment on whether it was hell. I spoke of other things.

Sand

Deleted User wrote: »

I sometimes wonder how much of what we consider to be the threat of the Soviet Union was true, and how much was US propaganda?

Tony EH wrote: »

Agreed.

That goes back to my point about the past being fixed and more certain, while the present by definition is unknown and uncertain. You can be quite sure that the average American was deeply concerned by the Soviet Empire as a threat no matter how the threat is downplayed today. The 50s were the era when the Soviets launched Sputnik, causing consternation in the US as to their supposed loss of a technological leadership position.

Now today, threats seem grim and terrible because you don't have the advantage and reassurance of knowing it all turned out alright in the end.

Tony EH wrote: »

People are getting too hung up on the 50's thing and missing the overall point which is a lot of Americans are looking back than looking forward.

I only used the 50's as an example of an America that looked forward. It had come out of the war unscathed, was the leading superpower, had toppled British influence globally and relegated her to second fiddle. The 50's, or post war era had seen America cement her position in the world. The war made America and the future was bright.

Pick another time if you want.

And as above, the same issue would arise - nostalgia about a certain past, and fear about an uncertain present. Its a bias people need to acknowledge and account for.

Today, a lot of Americans seem to be fearful of the future. They know the ship is unsteady and they don't trust the hands on the tiller.

Well, Trump is clearly riding on the back of some discontent, but its worth nothing that Trump is on target for a loss of historic proportions.

The thing is fear of the future, and doubt about the present leadership is not highly unusual. None of Americas leaders were amazingly pure or super competent. To cite the 1950s again, McCarthy was leading a witchhunt, a deeply damaged human being called J Edgar Hoover was running the FBI, Tricky Dick Nixon was just a heartbeat away from the presidency.

I think the US is overall doing quite well. There are of course various challenges and problems to deal with and a leadership that is doubted and criticised, but that's true for every era. Trumps message of gotterdammerung clearly resonates with a group of American voters who feel disenfranchised - but it is not a message which seems to have broad appeal with the majority of Americans.

KingBrian2

Sand wrote: »

That goes back to my point about the past being fixed and more certain, while the present by definition is unknown and uncertain. You can be quite sure that the average American was deeply concerned by the Soviet Empire as a threat no matter how the threat is downplayed today. The 50s were the era when the Soviets launched Sputnik, causing consternation in the US as to their supposed loss of a technological leadership position.

Now today, threats seem grim and terrible because you don't have the advantage and reassurance of knowing it all turned out alright in the end.



And as above, the same issue would arise - nostalgia about a certain past, and fear about an uncertain present. Its a bias people need to acknowledge and account for.



Well, Trump is clearly riding on the back of some discontent, but its worth nothing that Trump is on target for a loss of historic proportions.

The thing is fear of the future, and doubt about the present leadership is not highly unusual. None of Americas leaders were amazingly pure or super competent. To cite the 1950s again, McCarthy was leading a witchhunt, a deeply damaged human being called J Edgar Hoover was running the FBI, Tricky Dick Nixon was just a heartbeat away from the presidency.

I think the US is overall doing quite well. There are of course various challenges and problems to deal with and a leadership that is doubted and criticised, but that's true for every era. Trumps message of gotterdammerung clearly resonates with a group of American voters who feel disenfranchised - but it is not a message which seems to have broad appeal with the majority of Americans.

Perhaps but it has crappy policies.

KingBrian2

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Perhaps but it has crappy policies.

Do you think Irish governments would do better if we had control over America? Somehow I suspect the world would be in a worse state.

The problem is who can you compare US to? In terms of foreign or domestic policy. No other country comes close to it except for possibly China, and I far prefer having a dodgy America to a dominant China.

Tony EH

Sand wrote: »

That goes back to my point about the past being fixed and more certain,

As a student of both wars that ravaged the first half of the 20th century, I can tell you that history rarely meets the above definition.

Sand wrote: »

while the present by definition is unknown and uncertain. You can be quite sure that the average American was deeply concerned by the Soviet Empire as a threat no matter how the threat is downplayed today. The 50s were the era when the Soviets launched Sputnik, causing consternation in the US as to their supposed loss of a technological leadership position.

Sure. They were led to believe by their leaders that Russia was the "evil empire". Still, they had just come out of a world war completely intact and were looking forward to a brighter future in the main. For most people, things were on the up. The future did actually look good, as opposed to today.

Those "goddamn Commies" notwithstanding.

Sand wrote: »

Now today, threats seem grim and terrible because you don't have the advantage and reassurance of knowing it all turned out alright in the end.

I would say that the "threats" seem grim and terrible because they are on Americans doorsteps. A lot of Americans are literally terrified all the time. They're taught to be. If it isn't Islamists gunning down your kids, it's your neighbour (or "neighbor") and these threats are caught on camera all the time now. If it isn't planes cashing into the WTC, it's lads with semi autos slaughtering cops. There are much more down to earth worries too. One job households are a thing of the past. For many people a single job for a single person is too. There's no longevity to work any more. Your job can go one way, while you get escorted to the door with a box and a security guard. The future is incredibly dark even on the merest of financial scales for way too many people. Not being able to afford medical insurance could see you join the huge ranks of homeless people that populate the streets of nearly every city.

Americans are right to be worried.

Sand wrote: »

Well, Trump is clearly riding on the back of some discontent, but its worth nothing that Trump is on target for a loss of historic proportions.

It's not just the crazy with the syrup that is viewed cockeyed. Hilary isn't trusted either and for good reason. Most people I know in the States are democratic voters and they simply cannot vote for her. They didn't get the change they were promised the last time out and also feel that Hilary will just be a third term for Obama. America's bullshit two party circus nonsense, where people are divided along the most flimsiest of lines, that separate two conservative parties, is becoming more and more transparent every time voters go to the polls. People simply don't trust the power structure...and they are entirely correct. Trump will lose, but for many voters Clinton isn't that much better. Many voters of both persuasions are willing to say that Trump talks a good talk. But a lot know that he won't follow through on ANYTHING he says.

Sand wrote: »

The thing is fear of the future, and doubt about the present leadership is not highly unusual. None of Americas leaders were amazingly pure or super competent. To cite the 1950s again, McCarthy was leading a witchhunt, a deeply damaged human being called J Edgar Hoover was running the FBI, Tricky Dick Nixon was just a heartbeat away from the presidency.

I've never said anything about American leadership being "pure" or "super competent". In fact, I have specifically stated that they are manipulative of their populace. However, for the average joe the future was actually something to look forward to. People did feel that things were getting better, even on small scales. at least an average family could afford to buy a decent home and only on daddy's wage too.

The things you cite above wouldn't have really affected anyone much either. McCarthy would have been unknown to the vast majority of Americans of the day. Few people knew anything at all about Hoover or Nixon. The revelations of the latter two only coming out in the 70's.

Again, I am not saying the 50's were some sort of mecca. I've explained why I mentioned them and use that period (really 45 - 55) as an example to compare and contrast. The 50's, without doubt had major issues.

However, the topic title is "Is America in decline" and for a huge number of average Americans, it is and they will tell you about it too.

KingBrian2

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you think Irish governments would do better if we had control over America? Somehow I suspect the world would be in a worse state.

The problem is who can you compare US to? In terms of foreign or domestic policy. No other country comes close to it except for possibly China, and I far prefer having a dodgy America to a dominant China.

I don't downgrade the average Irish citizen. We would not start wars willy nilly like the Americans do and install tin pot dictators to suit their interests.

KingBrian2

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I don't downgrade the average Irish citizen. We would not start wars willy nilly like the Americans do and install tin pot dictators to suit their interests.

Neither am I. But then I wouldn't consider our politicians (for the most part) to be average irish people.

Fathom

Not declining militarily. World's largest budget. Tops EU. Three times China. Not declining GDP. First in world. Politically? Two parties dysfunctional. But always have been.

BoJack Horseman

Fathom wrote: »

Not declining militarily.

Across every metric available it absolutely is.

BoJack Horseman

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Across every metric available it absolutely is.

How? Details.

(I could write a long speil about different aspects of American military, but it would save time if you just point out examples, and then we can take those apart);)

BoJack Horseman

Deleted User wrote: »

How? Details

Off the top of my head

They are still in sequestration, so the DOD took a 20% budget hit from 4 budgets from 2012 to 2015. (I think the largest cut of any federal branch)
Force structure across all branches has been heavily cut back
USMC is about 1/3 smaller from peak, force structure is cut to around 20 btns, Corps aviation is frankly crippled at this point and they are retiring much of their amphibious assault kit to save some money to keep MC aviation procurement on track
- Army had to go through a pretty drastic reform. They are cut to 30 brigade combat teams, down from the 53 they had 12 years ago, a 40% reduction. Combat support brigades are down to 20. Only 10 of these brigades are armoured. By 2020 the US will have fewer army brigades than Russia.
The USN's combat fleet number is down 15% from a decade ago, 1 carrier wing was scrapped entirely & the others reduced in size.
Deployments are longer, again to save money but its causing massive problems with subsequent maintenance demands (longer deployment = more wear & tear).
- USAF is around 500 pilots below their required size, airframes really struggling with readiness levels due to cuts to maintainance mostly but also procurement. Pilot flight hours cut alarmingly from 300 per year to 120.
Much procurement was either frozen or cancelled due to budget cuts, but there is a massive bow-wave in retirements coming soon with little to replace it.
Training was slashed with (iirc) no training ops above battalion scale for at least 2 years (could be still ongoing).

I could go on, but all you need is out there & there is a lot of it.
But essentially they are spending less & contracting in numbers & capability across all branches while building up major procurement and operational problems to come down the line, all the while under massive pressure from the golfer-in-chief & his unending wars.

I welcome data showing the contrary of course!

Thanks. Good points. haha

Fathom

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Across every metric available it absolutely is.

Factor out war. US Military spending increased 2001 to 2014. Add war. Even larger. Link: http://cdn1.globalissues.org/i/military/13/us-spending-2001-2014-budget-war.png

BoJack Horseman

Fathom wrote: »

US Military spending increased 2001 to 2014

All credit do 15 years ago, but it wasn't the question.

The question is decline & it is, it's not subjective.
2011: $687bn
2015: $560bn

It's capability impact as I mentioned above has been precipitous.

Zubeneschamali

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Corps aviation is frankly crippled at this point

Aw, I always liked how the US navy's army had its own airforce.

Impetus

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you think Irish governments would do better if we had control over America? Somehow I suspect the world would be in a worse state.

The problem is who can you compare US to? In terms of foreign or domestic policy. No other country comes close to it except for possibly China, and I far prefer having a dodgy America to a dominant China.

While I agree about your feelings of "Ireland running the US", however the Swiss ("CH"). system would knock the spots off the problems with the US.

1. CH has a $75 billion current account surplus annually. The US a deficit of $484 billion (2015).

2. Switzerland is a federation, like the US - 26 countries most of whom are republics with their own constitution and parliament. The majority of Swiss taxes go to the town and canton. Only a small proportion ends up at federal level to pay for things like defense, foreign affairs, and a handful of other stuff. In general Swiss TDs aren't paid. They view public service as a good deed for their canton or federation.

3. Switzerland does not engage in military activities in Iraq or anywhere else. Big $$$ savings as a result. What terrorist wants to do damage to CH?

4. Switzerland has about 250 professions - be it brick laying or surgery. Each discipline is learned in college to the same high level of professionalism. As a result you have good quality products, good quality gov services and a high standard of living.

5. A large proportion of Swiss energy is green. Switzerland has the best public transport in the world, bar none. Zurich (similar size to Dublin) has 16 tram lines and 12 double deck (duplex) train lines to serve more distant suburbs. Integrated ticketing with no RFID card crap.

6. The Swiss health system is largely private. Insurance is compulsory - if you are poor, your local canton will pay the premium. Waiting times are close to zero.

7. The Swiss motorway system collects tolls without toll booths or cameras. If you want to use it, you buy a vignette and stick it on the windscreen. Cost CHF 50 for a year.

8. Swiss broadband has the lowest contention rates in Europe - resulting in the fastest usability for real applications.

9. Swiss water is clean. Water in Zurich costs about EUR 1 equivalent per m3. In Ireland it typically costs 3x for crappy water with all sorts of pollutants.

10. The average Swiss (someone with less than EUR 100'000 pa pays around 10% income tax). Some of the extremes:

eg Canton Zug:

Salary100,000.00 CHF
Direct Federal Tax- 4,836.00 CHF
Communal tax- 2,728.05 CHF
Cantonal tax- 3,728.34 CHF

Total Tax- 11,292.39 CHF

Net Pay*88,707.62 CHF

Even in socialist Zurich (Zug is 30 mins away from Zurich)

Salary 100,000.00 CHF
Direct Federal Tax- 8,261.00 CHF
Communal tax- 6,153.49 CHF
Cantonal tax- 5,171.00 CHF

Total Tax- 19,585.49 CHF

Net Pay 80,414.51 CHF


And then when you shop - your VAT (max 8%) is about a third of the typical EU rate:



11. The Swiss VAT highest rate is 8% - and that includes cars - cars in Switzerland are far cheaper than in the corrupt EU.

Every country needs taxation. Countries with high taxation signal corruption or government incompetence or both.

In Switzerland the tax base is allocated to the various levels of government. People can vote and overturn tax increases, because every law passed in Switzerland can be overturned by the people.

Real democracy. A concept clueless in English speaking countries, where incompetence and corruption are allowed to rule by a poorly educated population. It is a vicious circle. Poor education standards delivered by a low quality government.

KingBrian2

Impetus wrote: »

While I agree about your feelings of "Ireland running the US", however the Swiss ("CH"). system would knock the spots off the problems with the US.

1. CH has a $75 billion current account surplus annually. The US a deficit of $484 billion (2015).

2. Switzerland is a federation, like the US - 26 countries most of whom are republics with their own constitution and parliament. The majority of Swiss taxes go to the town and canton. Only a small proportion ends up at federal level to pay for things like defense, foreign affairs, and a handful of other stuff. In general Swiss TDs aren't paid. They view public service as a good deed for their canton or federation.

3. Switzerland does not engage in military activities in Iraq or anywhere else. Big $$$ savings as a result. What terrorist wants to do damage to CH?

4. Switzerland has about 250 professions - be it brick laying or surgery. Each discipline is learned in college to the same high level of professionalism. As a result you have good quality products, good quality gov services and a high standard of living.

5. A large proportion of Swiss energy is green. Switzerland has the best public transport in the world, bar none. Zurich (similar size to Dublin) has 16 tram lines and 12 double deck (duplex) train lines to serve more distant suburbs. Integrated ticketing with no RFID card crap.

6. The Swiss health system is largely private. Insurance is compulsory - if you are poor, your local canton will pay the premium. Waiting times are close to zero.

7. The Swiss motorway system collects tolls without toll booths or cameras. If you want to use it, you buy a vignette and stick it on the windscreen. Cost CHF 50 for a year.

8. Swiss broadband has the lowest contention rates in Europe - resulting in the fastest usability for real applications.

9. Swiss water is clean. Water in Zurich costs about EUR 1 equivalent per m3. In Ireland it typically costs 3x for crappy water with all sorts of pollutants.

10. The average Swiss (someone with less than EUR 100'000 pa pays around 10% income tax). Some of the extremes:

eg Canton Zug:

Salary100,000.00 CHF
Direct Federal Tax- 4,836.00 CHF
Communal tax- 2,728.05 CHF
Cantonal tax- 3,728.34 CHF

Total Tax- 11,292.39 CHF

Net Pay*88,707.62 CHF

Even in socialist Zurich (Zug is 30 mins away from Zurich)

Salary 100,000.00 CHF
Direct Federal Tax- 8,261.00 CHF
Communal tax- 6,153.49 CHF
Cantonal tax- 5,171.00 CHF

Total Tax- 19,585.49 CHF

Net Pay 80,414.51 CHF


And then when you shop - your VAT (max 8%) is about a third of the typical EU rate:



11. The Swiss VAT highest rate is 8% - and that includes cars - cars in Switzerland are far cheaper than in the corrupt EU.

Every country needs taxation. Countries with high taxation signal corruption or government incompetence or both.

In Switzerland the tax base is allocated to the various levels of government. People can vote and overturn tax increases, because every law passed in Switzerland can be overturned by the people.

Real democracy. A concept clueless in English speaking countries, where incompetence and corruption are allowed to rule by a poorly educated population. It is a vicious circle. Poor education standards delivered by a low quality government.

Switzerland is also full of bankers galore.:p

InTheTrees

Impetus wrote: »

however the Swiss ("CH"). system would knock the spots off the problems with the US.

There's only 8 million people in Switzerland.

AbusesToilets

Not a great comparison, given wildly divergent political goals and responsibilities that differentiate the US from other countries.

Overheal

Fathom wrote: »

Not declining militarily. World's largest budget. Tops EU. Three times China. Not declining GDP. First in world. Politically? Two parties dysfunctional. But always have been.

There's more to a military than the money spent on it. It's one thing to say you have the fattest budget in the world but it doesn't mean as much when you can't find $6.5 trillion of it and most of your projects run grotesquely overbudget.

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/audit-reveals-pentagon-6-5-trillion/

http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/30/two-years-late-and-2-billion-over-budget-navy-ship-under-review-again/

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/congress/article74010827.html

holly44

Overheal wrote: »

There's more to a military than the money spent on it. It's one thing to say you have the fattest budget in the world but it doesn't mean as much when you can't find $6.5 trillion of it and most of your projects run grotesquely overbudget.
]

The USA has the most feared military in the world for one reason , so they can keep printing money that is backed by nothing.
Keep pumping money into the US economy and military, any country in the world dumb enough to question this action, well thats the end of them, the USA sends in the Military to clean house, then just prints up another Trillion Dollars to pay for the war to keep the show on the road.
Its a giant ponzi scheme, eventually it will collapse, but not without worldwide chaos.

Dohnjoe

holly44 wrote: »

The USA has the most feared military in the world for one reason , so they can keep printing money that is backed by nothing. Keep pumping money into the US economy and military, any country in the world dumb enough to question this action, well thats the end of them, the USA sends in the Military to clean house, then just prints up another Trillion Dollars to pay for the war to keep the show on the road.
Its a giant ponzi scheme, eventually it will collapse, but not without worldwide chaos.

It's a common myth.

http://www.pragcap.com/the-biggest-myths-in-economics-page/

Fathom

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

All credit do 15 years ago, but it wasn't the question. The question is decline & it is, it's not subjective. 2011: $687bn 2015: $560bn It's capability impact as I mentioned above has been precipitous.

Factor out war. Decrease marginal.

BoJack Horseman

Fathom wrote: »

Factor out war

The collapse in OCO funding is one of the drivers of the US's military decline.
If you strip away OCO expenditure, core funding has also declined by more than what any Western European nation spends in their entirety!

The OCO cuts despite very high operations tempo has been disastrous.
It is this funding that has brought marine corps aviation to it's knees with 70% of its paper strength incapable of operating & naval deployments to be increased in tempo and duration.

When I posted about the massive cut in army brigade combat teams I wasn't wrong.
When I posted about the cut to a 20-odd btn marine corps, I wasn't wrong.
When I posted the declining number of combat vessels, I wasn't wrong.

So..... if you like, demonstrate how the US isn't in military decline.
I welcome reading those details.

Fathom

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

So..... if you like, demonstrate how the US isn't in military decline. I welcome reading those details.

Misnomer. Less $ is not decline. Nor is more growth. Efficiency & effectiveness key. 54% US 2015 budget is military. That's absurd. US accounts for 1/3 world military spending. Also absurd. Almost $600 billion. Misguided spending. Example: $17 billion Afghanistan wasted. Mansions. Unused buildings. Exceeds 80 nations GDP. US military has almost 1000 generals & admirals. More bloat. 234 military golf courses. More bloat. $500 million for marching bands. More bloat. The military bloat list goes on and on. Cut the bloat. Problem solved. Refs: https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/military-spending-united-states/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/02/09/this-remarkable-chart-shows-how-u-s-defense-spending-dwarfs-the-rest-of-the-world/ http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/articles/2016-02-03/the-pentagon-could-reach-a-historic-level-of-wasteful-spending http://www.salon.com/2012/12/12/7_absurd_ways_the_military_wastes_taxpayer_dollars/

BoJack Horseman

Fathom wrote: »

Misnomer.

Noope.

Again, explain how an army cutting from 53 brigades to 30 isn't weakening?

Again, explain how reducing the USN's combat fleet by 1/7th in the last decade isn't weakening?

Again, Explain how every CAW being 1/8th smaller than it was 5 years ago while also hit by falling availability rates isn't weakening?

I'm giving you concrete examples of capability decline and your retort is 'well, the marching bands are still there, ergo no decline!.

That's weak.

gosplan

Obama has created significant upheaval IMO, just by being Obama.

Rallying against him has been the drive of the republicans, the birther movement, the tea party etc. It's a schism on the right as they struggle for identity beyond 'we don't like Obama'. That's what lead to trump. That's why it looks crazy. This is the death of the strong American right wing.

There also was a significant financial crash less than a decade ago.