It would seem from this side of the pond that your government spends lots of money on the Armed forces and precious little on actually what people need.
You seem to be very angry about something which seems to me to be abstract. How is all this affecting you personally? What would you be able to do differently if they did what you wanted? Is it that you would pay less tax, or is there something else?
Sorry no it isn't advanced. It is just a pie chart.
Please tell me what personal freedoms you have lost and what what it would mean you could do differently if the government behaved like you wanted it to?
Is it just you would pay less tax.
Your country is just like the banks, too big to fail. Debt is not going to drag you under because you are the only game in town. It seems to me you have a lot of anger over fiscal policy.
I wonder if part of the difference in outlook betwen the USA and (Britain and Europe) is that the ancestors of the people in the USA emigrated from Europe - they were the people with the drive to do that so maybe the gene pool in the USA is slightly different. More drive, more self reliance, less caution.
Of course if there is any truth in that idea it makes a complete nonsense of the UK's current aversion to accepting immigrants.
I think that Trump despite being not too many generations from an immigrant is against them. Then it is always the last lot who want to pull the drawbridge up.
What I am keen to know is what these personal freedoms are that their government is restricting. Is it the rule of law, do they want to live in a fantasy Wild West? Or what?
Public debt as a percentage of GDP reached its highest level during Harry Truman's first presidential term, during and after World War II, but fell rapidly in the post-World War II period, and reached a low in 1973. Debt as a percentage of GDP has consistently increased since then, except during the presidencies of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.
Grumpy_Mike:
What I am keen to know is what these personal freedoms are that their government is restricting. Is it the rule of law, do they want to live in a fantasy Wild West? Or what?
For me - it would be:
Pretty much the majority of the falsely named "Patriot Act", an abomination to our country and Constitution that was passed by a majority in a swift and final manner soon after 9/11; this document was over 500 pages long - a virtual ream of paper. It seemingly appeared "out of the blue", fully formed, very shortly after 9/11:
...it was as if it were drafted at a much earlier time, by people/groups unknown or knowns, and sat in a drawer, waiting for it's appropriate moment. It was introduced on October 23, 2001, and signed into law by President Bush on October 26, 2001. Many or most of the members of our Congress and Senate had not read it (and probably still haven't); nor were any of its provisions debated or discussed. We have little information on how it was drafted, why, or by whose authority. While there are likely parts of it which could be considered well intentioned - there are many that aren't, and are arguably unconstitutional. Even so, when it comes time for sunsets on the law, it is continually re-upped, and kicked down the road to the next administration.
While I object to many pieces of that legislation, what galls me the most about it is the fact that no time was taken to evaluate and debate it. Our leaders whom we elected chose not to lead by not reading and debating that legislation. They bowed to cowardice and fear, which is most unlike what I expect from our leaders and representatives as an American. Via the Patriot Act, I would daresay that the terrorists got what they wanted - our country and our society (and ultimately the world) reacts with fear and/or blindness toward terrorist acts. We have capitulated our freedoms to fear, via this Act, and continue to do so as long as it remains part of our laws.
The Wars on XYZ - notably the "War on (some) Drugs", and the "War on Terror".
Need I go into the steps taken at the local and federal levels to limit women's (especially poor women) access to needed healthcare, birth control, and abortion services? Furthermore, most of it comes due to an agenda driven by religious fundamentalism, extreme conservatism, along with outright lies and deceit. While it may not affect me directly as a male, it does effect me in general as part of society - it also makes me angry, because I know those services do good; my wife and I both partook of them early in our relationship, mainly for general healthcare and screenings when we didn't have any other options.
[quote author=Coding Badly date=1455427456 link=msg=2613810]
Wow. He's so orange. I wonder how he does that? Bad makeup? Rusty pipes in his residence? Bronzing lotion out-of-date?[/quote]
He's glowing orange!
Has anyone tried using a Geiger counter near him?
Thanks. @cr0sh - interesting, I would have thought the personal liberties you were talking about would be more the concern of a liberal party rather than the right wing fascists that I see Trump, and more specifically his supporters, as being.
It might be that I get to have a vote because I have recently had some income tax deducted for some writing I have done. After all your country was founded on the principal of no taxation without representation, but I don't suppose I will.
That group is all about personal rights if you are talking about guns. Somehow they are convinced that someone is going to take their guns away. But their love of personal rights pretty much ends there. If you want to worship a different god, express a differing opinion, have an abortion, or do just about anything else they disagree with then suddenly personal freedom doesn't mean so much to them.
I only noticed the other day that the figure of Lincoln seated in the Lincoln Memorial, is resting his hands on the arms of the chair, formed from fasces.
Interesting how political imagery changes (remembering also that Lincoln was Republican)