General discussion


US government, justification or scare tactics?

By Oz_Media ·
Recently I have picked up on the tail end of a few news reports about the Airport security and taxes in the US.

FIRST of all, I heard a report that al-Qaeda has been planning another attack, again using airplanes as their detructive force, except more along the lines of charters or even helicopters. They are said to not have quite the same depth of intelligence behind the planning this time, but are still effectively planning attack on the US again. This was followed by them saying how al-Qaeda has regrouped, even within the US and an attack is now suspect, though no time frame or positive details are offered.

About an hour later I heard about GWB's plan to increase Airport security and a request to use incresed tax dollar spending to do it.

So while we ALL should agree that, despite the failed efforts in Afghanistan, al-Qaeda has NOT been stopped in ANY way, those that terrorized you still have strength and plans to do so again (moreso in vengeance of their former leaders)and they even reside in cells within the US.

So is this SCARE tactic about the airports possibly being used as yet ANOTHER scare tactic to get US citizens on the government side?

Will it work AGAIN?

Will everyone support the government's atrocious spending of your tax dollars due to fear of another attack?

Will people ever realize that you have always been a target of terrorism, as have many other countries around the world, and probably ALWAYS will be?

Will the US ogvrenment just have a new scare tactic every few years to make them seem proactive in stopping /reducing these threats? Do you ACTUALLY believe it is effective and not just lip service to secure a single FORM of government (repub or Democrat)as the one that works and helps protect America?

Seems like very 'convenient' timing between the 'new found information' (that everyone should have known all along anyway, and validating GWB's request for added tax spending?

Will he then expect the large coporations, that he has given tax breaks to, to start paying MORE taxes or will it be from YOUR pockets instead?

Does the US government possibly have the same need to control it's people as those that are considered socialists are SAID to have?

If so, will it happen by default, everyone just being coaxed into more conformity until they are living under the government's own umbrella, away from the personal freedoms and independance you feel you have over others?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

I'd rather see foreign aid slashed

by gralfus In reply to US government, justificat ...

and use that money to cover our own butts first. We give away billions of tax money annually to nations run by corrupt governments that pocket most of it. Rather than continue to flush it down the toilet, I'd like to see reform. We could not tax the money in the first place, and benefit our people. The money he is asking for is already being taxed, but is being spent on projects that don't benefit us. But to keep adding on more taxes is a foolish path. We have an entrenched mentality that there are some things that just won't be touched, but I'd like the prez and congress to be much more tightfisted with tax monies going abroad, and use them locally first.

Collapse -

That's a pretty interesting view

by Oz_Media In reply to I'd rather see foreign ai ...

Is that 'charitable donation', for lack of a better word, not in the US best interests as far as trade with other nations is concerned? I don't mean direct trade with the nation being aided but acceptance of OTHER allied nations by doing so.

It would be hard for the US to APPEAR to be an empathetic and caring nation if they refused support of such countries, as many other countries spend large portionsof their money these same ways, certainly due to the US economy, wealth, dollar value and NUMBERS of people, the US donation is considerably MORE than others but is similar when broken down to percentages.

Would it not HARM the US world relations, if they ceased such aid?

Sure the US is pretty independant and at the present time, still has the largest military. But the US also relies on SO many other countries as it definitely is an importer of others goods more than it is an exporter of it own. The US, relies on these other allies more than most people seem to realize, I think.

Without the imports from other countries, your own costs would be higher, your consumption would need to be reduced greatly (again to stop soaring costs due to limited availibility) and would lose MUCH allied support that you have always relied on in times of war, for power, for imports such as grains and lumber and others that keep your country's economy intact. Yes the US is the KEY driving force between modern allied warfare, but they have proven several times that they NEED and RELY on other allies for spcific contribution in order to save more US lives and effectively execute their plans of war, they rely on importing power from Canada as well as other valued resources.

Your imports FAR outweigh your exports, you NEED the world to support you, FACT.

SO if every other country did the same and started saving their own resources would we not all be reverting to a world of individual countries that plan to invade and attack each other to gain valuable resources? I feel it is this two way street that keeps the peace and allows all involved to live better lives.

Not supporting the allies of your allies seems that it would only be detrimental to your own economy and safety in the long run, no matter how many mroe dollars are kept in your country. Having money is great, but not if you can't get what you need WITH that money.

So would THIS perhaps be a reason to continue world relations in the same maner and keep as many 'friends' on your side as possible?

The world's allied nations have formed alliances in order to create better countries for eveyone involved. This has included , support for war, trade, aiding those in need and stopping repression of those that do NOT have it as good as we do.

I feel that ceasing such support would in turn show that you don't care about nations that do not support your own economy and would in turn harm relations with those countries who you DO require support from.

American can't do it alone, this is a fact I am sure you realize, you are NOT self sufficient and NEED others in order to sustain your way of life that you have grown accustomed to. Is this not a good reason to support those in need of YOUR help too?

Just thoughts...

Collapse -

Puts me in mind to post this quote:

by Fonken Monken UK In reply to That's a pretty interesti ...

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

Ahh Herman Goering. Ahead of his time it would appear. To my mind, scare mongering is whats going on.

Collapse -

buying "friends"

by jdclyde In reply to That's a pretty interesti ...

From many posts here, and watching world news outlets it doesn't look like we are getting much value from this "investment".

When a lot of countries are either scared or jellious of us, it doesn't look like we are getting much bang for the buck here.

We give the money to the governments who turn around and brainwash their people who evil and decadent America is. Cut them off.

If you are truely an ally, with common goals and respect you do what ever you can for them.

Countries like France that can't come to grips on why they aren't a world power sure don't deserve support OR the purchase of their exports.

You make is sound like countries are doing us a FAVOR by them being able to sell their goods here. So we should GIVE them money so they can continue to SELL us goods below what North Americans producers can? That doesn't help any of us in the long run.

Because we by percentage HAVE more, we are EXPECTED to GIVE more? I don't believe that for a second that is a rational argument.

I know homelessness has been a problem in Canada. Wouldn't you argue for helping THEM before sending aid to other countries? (I do not include disaster relief in this)

Collapse -

Get the facts straight

by amcol In reply to buying "friends"

Do any of you happen to know exactly how much the US spends in foreign aid on an annual basis? And what percent of the total budget that represents?

No fair peeking, don't do any Internet searches. You're all making comments about better use of the money, let's see if you know what you're talking about.

Post your answers to both questions, then I'll tell you what the real answers are. Which I happen to know since I'm in the business.

Collapse -

How much you give in foreign aid, broken record.

by Oz_Media In reply to Get the facts straight

Whenever the USA is questioned there is ONE focus rom teh people, HOW MUCH WE GIVE and NEVER HOW MUCH WE TAKE.

YOu obviously work with the government as you are in the business of understanding world affairs and global trade agreements that sustain your livelihoods.
Then you should know the facts already. You take, you take, you take you take.

But Americans say you give, you give, you give, you give.

So I suppose all in all it is a pretty fair give and take situation afterall.

NOTE: I didn't do an internet search, this is a great site for a lot of economical information and stats that are used here often.

Collapse -

Whoa, big fella

by amcol In reply to How much you give in fore ...

It may surprise you to hear that I completely agree with you. This was the point of my overwhelming majority believes the US gives a lot more than it does.

A study commissioned by the Rand Corporation within the last year asked Americans how much they thought the US gave in foreign aid each year as a percentage of the total budget.

The most popular answer, far and away, was 25%.

The correct answer: 0.25%. US foreign aid annually is only about $15 billion. This against a multi-trillion dollar budget.

Can we give more? You betcha.

Collapse -

The question is should we?

by Garion11 In reply to Whoa, big fella

I say no...but I am only a simple average Joe and I think that money should be spent here instead of overthere (although I can see the necessity). Lets face it, both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of this.

The second part to your equation is...that .25% might be low on the percentage scale...but high in actual monies given. Meaning...our GDP is so high, that we give more $$ in raw dollar amount but low percentage amount. So lets face the end it doesn't matter what the damn percentages is the actual $$ that are being spent is what counts.

50% of 100,000 = 50,000 (Say Canada or something)

25% of 1,000,000 = 250,000 (USA).

Our percetage is low...but our actual $$ is HIGH. See the difference.

Collapse -


by Oz_Media In reply to Whoa, big fella

I obviously miunderstood your post.

I wasn't TOO sure as I read it, I saw both sides of your comment but got the wrong overall impression, my mistake.

Collapse -


by Oz_Media In reply to Whoa, big fella

I see your point but I feel it just outlines the point being made before.

It's not the TOTAL dollar value that is impressive, it's the persentage of it.

If one guy donates $100 and the other only $50. The first is seen as twice as genrous and caring as the second.

If that $100 equates to only 25% of that persons income and the $50 equates to 50% of the second guys income, the first person doesn't look QUITE as generous at that point and in fact the second person is making a FAR greater personal sacrifice in an effort to help out.

SO if everyone in the US sacrificed $1 for a total donation of $300 million, in order for Canada to match that donation, the personal contribution each person must donate is $10.

SO the percenage of GDP is FAR more accurate in THIS case than the total amount of money spent.

Related Discussions

Related Forums