Nikluz said:
Ok, lets say you were going to die soon, would you not leave all your possessions to your kids? And while the "spoiled rich kid" stereotype is often true, they usually change their attitude when they go into the world on their own. Take Donald Trump for example, he was the son of a rich man but built his company from the ground up trough hard work, and is now a very successful man. And all I'm saying is that there should be a fair flat tax of about 5%, that way everyone could benifit. On a diffent subject, Universal health care is extremely flawed. Competetion is what moves humanity forward, if you have to move forward and advance to beat the other company to earn a higher paycheck, then you'll do it. If you do that then good idea after good idea will take place and you will drive not only your company forward but also the entire market for your product because others will try to beat you. Take for example the AT & T case. In the 60's the United States Goverment ordered AT & T do break up into parts. They did this because they were the only phone company, they had no competeion to drive them forward, and therefore had no reason to advance. If the U. S. goverment had not stopped their monopoly then many of the communication devises that we use today, such as cellphones, wouldn't have been built. And not to mention that if you did implement universal health care then millions of people in the healthcare and medical industries would be fired or quit because goverment salaries aren't as substansial. Hospitals and Emergency Rooms would be like the DMV. Then we would be extremly shorthanded on disease research because of the people that left, therefore many sicknesses wouldnt have vaccines or cures. And how is getting millions of people fired and on the streets freedom, the goverment should not interfere with individual businesses, unless they have a monopoly. In which case it is the goverments duty to push the market forward. Now while I dont agree with things such as outsourceing, I do support most aspects of Conserveitism. And also, yes it is a basic human right and I think the goverment should have a healthcare system to accomodate the unemployed, but it shouldnt rule the market. And in reality most rich people work there fingers to the bone to get to where they are. I agree that a percent of American tourists are to dependent on stereotypes when they travel abroad and other parts of the world may view some of our television as unruly or stupid, but how dare you call us an annoying 12 year old, we have the largest and most well trained army in the world, some of the best scienctists, and the best resources. (I mean we could be completely self sufficient) Give us some credit. Oh and I'm not a troll, I'm a republican that looks out for America's best intrests. And exactly what country are you from?
Yes there are a few people who built there own companies, independent of their parents. But there are also more people who live of their parents interest. I'm not saying they shouldn't inherit, i'm saying they shouldn't be getting off with what is basically a free ride.
NO competition drives for the best balance of quality and price/profit. The companies are always going to be looking to be cutting corners to make their services cheaper. They care about the money, not the consumer. Yes they have to keep consumer at the base minimum of satisfied to keep them coming back and paying.
I'm also not against private hospitals/research etc. I just think that everyone should be entitled to FREE healthcare. That's the governments job right? To protect its people? So why shouldn't that extend from military defence to Universal Health Care.
Now, as to the country I am from. It would be England. We have the NHS. Universal Health Care. The doctors are one of the highest paid jobs in the country, and I know plenty of doctors that prefer working for the NHS over privately funded hospitals.
As for what America has. It doesn't have the largest army in the world (the Chinese greatly outnumber you), and the training for said army is much less than the training the soldiers from England receive.
Probably because England has less people to dispose of in the army, but that is neither here nor there.
Yes it may have the most advanced equipment, but that doesn't equal large or well trained.
As for the scientists, you would notice most of the best are from other countries, which America being the "centre" of the world attracts.
As for resources. I really can't comment. You'd have to define resources. For instance, most fast food meat is imported (because its cheaper), all your oil is imported, etc. Don't delude yourself that you could have the same quality of life as you do now without other countries.
Most countries need the other countries to remain free trade so we can all benefit.
Finally, I should've made it more clear, I don't think that individual Americans are 12 year olds, or that their technology is. But in terms of social maturity it certainly isn't setting a brilliant example. Most likely due to its relative youth as a country in relation to the rest of the world, another good example is Australia whose society is also relatively young.
