Rise of Neo-Nazi groups in USA

Status
Not open for further replies.

Damian

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
It seems you have some obsession with this, right?

And the funny thing is that you choose only these news that are correct to your beliefs. But the truth is that mass media, do not say truth, only their point of view, or point of view of people that have deep pockets, a lot of money and will to pay mass media for some "news". Reality many times is far more diffeent, and interesting.

As for hate groups... maybe you should write something about rising neonazism in former soviet union republics. ;)
 

hello_10

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
1,880
Likes
680
It seems you have some obsession with this, right?

And the funny thing is that you choose only these news that are correct to your beliefs. But the truth is that mass media, do not say truth, only their point of view, or point of view of people that have deep pockets, a lot of money and will to pay mass media for some "news". Reality many times is far more diffeent, and interesting.

As for hate groups... maybe you should write something about rising neonazism in former soviet union republics. ;)
did you get anything from my last post, other than what I believe in? did you get 'anything' from my last two posts, can you make few questions on them, other than discussing what we all believe in???????

"when poor education level fall to certain level, the only thing remain is, what we believe in regardless how things really work." :tsk:
 

Damian

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
"when poor education level fall to certain level, the only thing remain is, what we believe in regardless how things really work."
This is perfect description of yourself.

Only poorly educated people believe completely in media news, and are excited with them, just like you.

Seriously the number of emoticons and balded parts of text looks like you are reacting to these news, just like a 15 years old to the view of naked women.

did you get anything from my last post, other than what I believe in? did you get 'anything' from my last two posts, can you make few questions on them, other than discussing what we all believe in???????
Yeah, I get anything, for example that you are naive, anitamerican (or overall antiwestern) teenage, who have very simplified understanding of world affairs and who still believe that he lives in a country that do not exist for the past 21 years.

But please, continue, you are so entertaining!
 
Last edited:

average american

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2012
Messages
1,540
Likes
440
What rendered radical organizations impotent in the USA were law suits, if they preach hate and some one acts on it, then they are sued in court and lose all their assets plus all they will ever own both as an organization and individualy.. Groups like seldom if ever do any thing violent any longer. The way the world works any thing happening bad to developed nations is not going to help developing nations, it never has. When rome fell, did it make the rest of the world better.
 

hello_10

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
1,880
Likes
680
This is perfect description of yourself.

Only poorly educated people believe completely in media news, and are excited with them, just like you.

Seriously the number of emoticons and balded parts of text looks like you are reacting to these news, just like a 15 years old to the view of naked women.
so this is how you want to damage my this thread? this is what you want to talk with me in this thread??????

look, there are few questions on my last 2 posts as below, and if you ask then I may answer you, and if you could get just nothing then why do you come to this thread and disturb this certain topic, which is related to the extent US may pay Welfare to its civilians, otherwise they all may join the rising militia groups????? as already explained in my post #15.......

few questions on my last two posts can be asked as below, and if you want then I may answer otherwise please don't fight with me. thanks

1st, how the US will have to pay $1.2trillions interests on its national debt, 33% of its Budget Expenditure, if inflatioon rise to 7%?

2nd, why inflation would ever rise, which may bring interest rate to its level also?

3rd, why can't US keep borrowing $2.0trillions, for every 18 months, forever?

4th, why is it so interesting to read this growing debt level while US economy is itself growing by 1.7%, as per 2012, which is not bad for a developed economy?

5th, why would the developing countries wait for fall of US+EU economies, why dont they demand for a deprecition of USD and Euro to bring down cost of oil/gas/metals and western imported products straigtway?

bla bla, you may ask too many things out of my last 2 posts, and if not, please talk to someone else :wave:
 
Last edited:

Damian

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
1st, how the US will have to pay $1.2trillions interests on its national debt, 33% of its Budget Expenditure, if inflatioon rise to 7%?
Because USA have largest reserves of oil and gas. USA might not only be completely independant in energy production, but whole world needs oil, especially developing countries. Solding oil mean money, money that first can be used to pay debts, then to finance strategic programs. Besides this USA is investing a lot in more fuel efficent and alternative fuel sources.

Russia is example of country that payed it's debts with oil and other natural resources, simple as that.

But of course you ignore this.

3rd, why can't US keep borrowing $2.0trillions, for every 18 months, forever?
Answer is obvious, but as I said, debts can be payed with natural resources.

bla bla, you may ask too many things out of my last 2 posts, and if not, pleae talk to someone else
Why should I even ask you? You have biased view on the world, so you are not any partner to any discussion.

BTW seriously, Soviet Union do not exist for the past 21 years, can you stop making a clown from yourself and change this idiotic flag?

look, there are few questions on my last post as below, and if you ask then I may answer you, and if you could get just nothing then why do you come to this thread and disturb this certain topic, which is related to the extent US may pay Welfare to its civilians, otherwise they may join the rising militia groups?????
Because some people join militia groups, does not mean whole nation will joint them. This is marginal problem, if any.

Well seriously the bigger problem is rise of neonascism in former soviet union republics. Some time ago there was a movie when members of such group in Russia, killed some innocent men.

So milita groups in USA are problem, but the same phenomen in former Soviet Union do not exist?

This is another perfect example that you are biased, unmature person.
 
Last edited:

hello_10

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
1,880
Likes
680
Because USA have largest reserves of oil and gas. USA might not only be completely independant in energy production, but whole world needs oil, especially developing countries. Solding oil mean money, money that first can be used to pay debts, then to finance strategic programs. Besides this USA is investing a lot in more fuel efficent and alternative fuel sources.

Russia is example of country that payed it's debts with oil and other natural resources, simple as that.

But of course you ignore this.



Answer is obvious, but as I said, debts can be payed with natural resources.



Why should I even ask you? You have biased view on the world, so you are not any partner to any discussion.

BTW seriously, Soviet Union do not exist for the past 21 years, can you stop making a clown from yourself and change this idiotic flag?



Because some people join militia groups, does not mean whole nation will joint them. This is marginal problem, if any.

Well seriously the bigger problem is rise of neonascism in former soviet union republics. Some time ago there was a movie when members of such group in Russia, killed some innocent men.

So milita groups in USA are problem, but the same phenomen in former Soviet Union do not exist?

This is another perfect example that you are biased, unmature person.
hmmm, one thing you said that US may pay back its debt, and solve its problems by the natural resources it has....

and the answer I have given before, that is, even if Saudi Arabia has this much oil, its GDP on PPP is hardly around $24,000 for only 30mil population. and if currently US even import half of the Oil it consumes, then how even being energy independent may make you maintain $50,000 per capita income at 330mil population?????

same is true for Russia, so much oil/gas export both, with high level of metals export and owing high technologies but still its per capita income is close to $24,000 on PPP......

sir, there is no recession right now and we now find that US did heavy cuts in its expenditures for last few years also. and with the facts that it may take at least 10 years more for US to become an exporter of oil, from here, how much the oil revenue may really help the US's economy to fulfill this $1.3trillions borrowing every year, which is required without recession also, as right now???? (note: total export of Saudi Arabia is itself hardly around $350billions per year..)
 

Damian

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
You seems to not even understand the problem.

Natural resources are not panaceum to all problems, and increase in use of natural resources, for exports, will mean, that there will be additional income besides these economy branches that are currently generating income. Simple as that.

Russia have economic problems, or Saudi Arabia, because their economy is mostly based on natural resources, US is in much more comfortable situation, because besides natural resources, they have innovations in other economy branches.

Which means both natural resources branch and other branches can support each other instead of basic economy on only one of them.

For example natural resources branch need scientific innovations branch, to design equipment, needed to use for example shale gas and shale oil sources, and they can sold these machines, also to other countries that have such shale gas/oil resources, which will also generate income.

There are many ways to make money.

Of course there are other ways to help economy as well. For example cut any spending on social help, on state healthcare and such bollocks.

Besides this I see that you expect that problems will be solved in few years. This do not work that way, it might take a decades to pay all debts, but the situation is not without solutions. It make take even 50 years to pay all debts, but still, USA is in a good position... definetly much better than EU countries that have Euro as their currency.
 
Last edited:

hello_10

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
1,880
Likes
680
You seems to not even understand the problem.

Natural resources are not panaceum to all problems, and increase in use of natural resources, for exports, will mean, that there will be additional income besides these economy branches that are currently generating income. Simple as that.

Russia have economic problems, or Saudi Arabia, because their economy is mostly based on natural resources, US is in much more comfortable situation, because besides natural resources, they have innovations in other economy branches.

Which means both natural resources branch and other branches can support each other instead of basic economy on only one of them.

For example natural resources branch need scientific innovations branch, to design equipment, needed to use for example shale gas and shale oil sources, and they can sold these machines, also to other countries that have such shale gas/oil resources, which will also generate income.

There are many ways to make money.

Of course there are other ways to help economy as well. For example cut any spending on social help, on state healthcare and such bollocks.

Besides this I see that you expect that problems will be solved in few years. This do not work that way, it might take a decades to pay all debts, but the situation is not without solutions. It make take even 50 years to pay all debts, but still, USA is in a good position... definetly much better than EU countries that have Euro as their currency.
russian economy is not on just export of oil, and, both Russia and SA have their debt level below 10% to GDP, with ongoing surplus while for that of US, its debt is growing by around $1.3trillions every year, as of last 18 months of the news we have, despite so many cuts in expenditures etc, in so favourable economic condition of US itself. and how long they may borrow to pay their people for nothing as Welfare, otherwise they may take their arms and come to the streets, the highly armed country of the world, with highest crime level itself, is on this topic of thread.

thanks :thumb:
 

average american

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2012
Messages
1,540
Likes
440
The debt is not a problem for the United States, because the United States is the owner and issuer of the international currency for the commercial and financial transactions, and, moreover, the currency in which the central banks of the world maintains their international reserves.


But, the essence of the issue is that while for the rest of the countries their financial international commitments are external debts, for the United States their financial international commitments are internal debt, because it is a debt in its own currency. The difference between external debt and internal debt is that the former is denominated in international means of payment (U.S. $), while the second is denominated in national currency of each country.

The fact that its debt is considered internal debt and not external debt is the big advantage of the United States, because the U.S. has sovereign capacity to issue U.S. dollars, without limitations.

The debt of the United States instead of to be a factor of weakness of its economy and the world economy, is a factor that reveals the strength of the US economy.
 

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,594
The debt is not a problem for the United States, because the United States is the owner and issuer of the international currency for the commercial and financial transactions, and, moreover, the currency in which the central banks of the world maintains their international reserves.
An interesting hypothesis for sure..
 

Damian

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
But definetly the natural resources will help USA to pay debts, if not all of them, most at least.

While obviously reforms are needed... especially the ones to revert some crazy ideas of Barack Obama.

otherwise they may take their arms and come to the streets, the highly armed country of the world, with highest crime level itself, is on this topic of thread.
Only idiot would go out with semi automatic weapons against most advanced, one of biggest, best trained and deadliest armed forces on this planet, and belive me, only complete nuts would go out on streets.

Americans despite what people over the world think, are one of the most patriotic nations, so even if there are some nuts, this does not mean that most of nation will go out.

But of course you can still live in your silly bieliefs.
 
Last edited:

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,556
Country flag
The US should not place its bets on natural resources exploitation. This should only be a plus factor. Instead, it should focus more on reviving its economy. Although I agree that the recently appreciated dramatic resurgence of US oil and gas output is something to consider when talking about US economy and debt.
 

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,594
The US should not place its bets on natural resources exploitation. This should only be a plus factor. Instead, it should focus more on reviving its economy. Although I agree that the recently appreciated dramatic resurgence of US oil and gas output is something to consider when talking about US economy and debt.
Perhaps a new thread is needed at this point?
 

hello_10

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
1,880
Likes
680
I'm not prepared for a new thread. Maybe you should start it...
its a very good comment. US is adding $100bn+ debt every month while total export of Saudi Arabia is itself close to $350billions??? even after so many cuts in spending, its now putting $2.0trillions debt for every 18months, as discussed earlier in this thread?????

on the top of that, Americans live in a fantasy that they may borrow as much debt as they wish, as this is what they may do, as explained in post #51 :facepalm:

while the ground realty of US is explained as below :tsk:

-> Escape from America

and from my side I may say that the way US and EU are borrowing debt to bear expanses and keeping their currency at the current level, that time is not far away when they may have an experience like Zimbabwe, hopefully till the end of this decade......:wave:
 
Last edited:

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,556
Country flag
To be fair to Americans they have a deficit problem because they don't tax their people higher. The US have the lowest tax rate in the World but the problem is that most Americans don't want to be taxed more. In the meantime maintaining their global stature and domestic healthcare is costing more...
 

hello_10

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
1,880
Likes
680
To be fair to Americans they have a deficit problem because they don't tax their people higher. The US have the lowest tax rate in the World but the problem is that most Americans don't want to be taxed more. In the meantime maintaining their global stature and domestic healthcare is costing more...
sir, I have read news that, since recession 2008, US's firms are only the source of 'employment', with around 30% to 50% drop in tax collection occurred during this period. please have a close look on this debt clock, total GDP size of US increased by hardly $1.3trillions since 2008, mainly due to inflation, while the debt by around $6.0trillions since 2008???? (please check the 2008 data in this debt clock and compare it with today's)

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

while how much the $6.0trillions worth, which US only borrowed to keep its current economic size? then I would say that If India planned $1.0trillions spending on infrastructure for the next 5 years, but if they may invest $6.0trillions in infrastructure by next 10 years then its economic size will boom to at least $8.0trillions by 2022, with considering effect of inflation also, which will then transform India into a true industrialized nation, with comparison to West....

in sum I would say, US is borrowing the debt which they will never be able to return :wave:
 
Last edited:

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,556
Country flag
Facing the 'Fiscal Cliff': US Taxpayers Have Had it Easy for Decades
By: John W. Schoen, NBC News
December 3, 2012

Americans hate paying taxes. They also want Congress and the White House to balance the budget.

They can't have it both ways.

On one side of the escalating budget debate is the premise, offered up by a generation of politicians and tax policy wonks since Ronald Reagan, that government spending is dangerously "out of control" and needs to be restrained. Even if the cure means starving the Treasury Department of cash.

One the other side is a promise, dating back to the Great Depression and expanded through Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, to divert a greater share of the nation's hard-earned resources to care for the oldest and most economically vulnerable Americans.

That decades-long conflict seems to be approaching something of a Moment of Truth.

"If we want to maintain ourselves as a very low-tax country, then we have to break some of those promises," said Michael Linden, a tax policy analyst at the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank.

"That's the big dilemma that facing the country right now. That's the basic contour on the debate."

The debate intensified over the weekend, as Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner made the Sunday talk show circuit to lay out the case for the Obama administration's latest budget proposal. The plan calls for nearly $1.6 trillion in new tax revenue over the next decade, along with some $600 billion in spending cuts, including $350 billion from Medicare and other health programs.

The plan also calls for raising tax rates and limiting deductions on households making more than $250,000, a proposal Geithner told NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday that he thinks congressional Republicans will accept.

"I think we're going to get there," Geithner told NBC.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, isn't so sure.

His first response to the White House proposal: "You can't be serious," he told "Fox News Sunday."

Still, with the deadline for a deal to head off the so-called "fiscal cliff" now less than a month away, the debate has shifted from whether taxes should go up to just who should pay more. Both sides seem to acknowledge what some economists have been saying for some time.

The problem with the budget is that Americans don't pay enough taxes.

The case isn't hard to make. The U.S. federal tax burden, relative to gross domestic product, is lower than it's been in half a century. Americans pay lower taxes in relation to the size of their economy than all but a handful of developed countries, including Chile and Mexico.

The relatively low tax burden on Americans is, in part, an illusion that results from heavy reliance on hundreds of billions of dollars of so-called "tax expenditures." To make government spending appear lower than it really is, the U.S. tax code is larded with givebacks, deductions and exemptions.

For example, the government lets you off the hook for paying taxes on the cash your employer pays to cover your health insurance coverage - income by another name. The cost of those uncollected taxes would show up as spending if the Treasury paid you a direct subsidy for health care. (That tax break, by the way, is the biggest single giveaway the government provides.)

Or take the earned income tax credit, which issues payments to low-income households. This giveback costs the Treasury just as much as if it collected the money from all taxpayers and then turned around and used it to write checks for those with the lowest wages.

"It doesn't really make much difference whether the government taxes people - and spends the money in order to redirect it - or whether it gives a tax incentive that encourages people to spend their own money in the same way," said Bruce Bartlett, who served as a Reagan administration policy adviser and as a Treasury official under President George H. W. Bush. "Economically, it's exactly the same thing."

The biggest sticking point in the current debate centers on whether tax rates should rise. Thanks to the thicket of loopholes available at all income levels, those "marginal" rates have little to do with how much of your hard-earned money you must fork over to the government.

As a percentage of their total income, though, Americans are paying less than they have in more than a half century. Since 1960, the government's total take has been remarkably steady at about 18.3 percent of gross domestic product, give or take a percentage point.

In the second half of the 1990s, that changed. Thanks to a booming economy , the Treasury began collecting money faster than the government could spend it – without raising tax rates. The dot-com stock market boom, for example, produced a surge in capital gains taxes, even after the government cut the tax rate on those gains in 1997.

By the end of the decade, the Treasury was using the excess cash to pay down the national debt. But that raised the politically difficult question: if the government collects more than it needs, doesn't that mean tax rates are too high?

The result was 2000 campaign pledge from both President George W. Bush and his Democratic opponent, Al Gore, to cut taxes, a promise that the government apparently could afford to make at that time. Just a few years later, when the dot-com boom turned to bust, the new, lower tax rates starved the government of cash following the 2001 recession and the weak recovery that stalled wage growth.

That shortfall widened sharply following the deep recession of 2007, when tax receipts cratered. Last year, the Treasury's total take came to just 15.4 percent of GDP, the lowest level in 60 years.

When income dries up for the average American household, most people start looking for ways to cut back. But during the 2000s, no one in Washington was in the mood to cut government spending, which continued to rise throughout the decade, paid for with borrowed money. Ironically, that decade of government spending beyond its means without harm may now make it harder for Congress and the White House to convince voters to accept spending cuts.

"If you cut their taxes without showing people what that means in terms of cutting services, they don't understand that those two things are connected over time," said Linden. "All of a sudden, government services just seem cheaper to people."

For now, government spending doesn't appear to be the problem. After peaking in the first quarter of 2011, even before the mindless "fiscal cliff" cuts imposed by "sequestration," federal spending has begun falling gradually. That contraction is one of the reasons the economic recovery remains weak.

This may not be a good time to cut spending. As Europe's weaker countries are demonstrating painfully, trying to balance a national budget too quickly with tax increases and spending cuts can just as quickly send an economy in reverse. In the U.S., most private economists, along with the Congressional Budget Office, have warned that the "fiscal cliff" package of a half trillion dollars in tax hikes and spending cuts will almost certainly send the American economy back into recession next year.

That would take an even bigger bite out of tax receipts. Which is why there's widespread agreement that the best way to raise more money for the U.S. Treasury is to spur the economy to produce a bigger pie of wages, capital gains and investment income that can be taxed. After all, every new job creates new tax dollars without increasing the tax burden on those already employed.

The Obama administration argues that the government needs to invest more tax dollars to spur economic growth. The latest White House budget proposal includes $200 billion in new spending on jobless benefits, public works and help for struggling homeowners.

Until the day comes when the government collects enough taxes to pay its bills, it will have to borrow more money. And no one on either side of the aisle believes the government can balance the budget again for at least another decade, if not longer.

For now, the best hope is to shrink the deficit gradually and slow the expansion of some $16.3 trillion in government debt that has piled up after taxpayers shortchanged their government for more than a decade.

Despite widespread agreement on the long-term goal of eliminating budget deficits, though, the impact of a swollen national debt remains a largely intangible threat to most voters.

Unlike the Great Inflation of the 1970s, when double-digit interest rates all but killed the housing industry and prices of everything from groceries to gasoline soared, most consumers today aren't feeling the impact of the current federal budget debate on their own budgets.

That's eased much of the pressure on Congress and the White House to make a deal, according to Bartlett.

"What is the potential benefit of reducing the deficit?" he said. "Are you going to get lower prices? No. Are you going to get lower interest rates? No. Are you going to get more economic growth? No. So there's no tangible payoff. It's all theoretical or even hypothetical. I think that's the main constraint today in terms of putting together a budget deal."


Facing the 'Fiscal Cliff': US Taxpayers Have Had it Easy for Decades
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top