Well, in your example, country A that is taxed at 70% is taxed twice as much as country B but only gives 5% more of it's GDP. Country B gives a much higher % of it's taxable revenue to charity than country A. Assuming we had the same GDP, that would mean country A has 7 dollars (70% taxes) and gives 2 dollars (20% GDP) to charity. Country B has 3 dollars (30% taxes) and gives 1.5 dollars (15% GDP) to charity. Taking that further and saying Country B has a GDP 100 times that of Country A, that would mean Country B donates 150 dollars to every 2 dollars for Country A. A 5% difference in GDP but a huge difference in money and a huge difference in the % of taxes given.
Did I call you stupid? I apologize if I did. I try to restrain myself although i do seem to get carried away sometimes. Please don't put me in the 'you are a commie' category though .
Well you called JuanValdez stupid when in my experience he is not. Also I believe when 9/11 first happened you got a bit personal in a debate with me (though that may have been someone else and if so I apologise). Differences of opinion, no matter how severe they are, do not equate to differences in intelligence. Now if you said his ideas were stupid I would have much less of a beef. I just find resorting to calling names gets pretty tiresome pretty quickly... However I am certainly guilty as well and have been called on it before so I don't want to be too melodramtic. It just really detracts from arguments imo when things get too personal. And don't worry, you're out of the "commie" catagory, at least in my book.
And this is the part where you need real numbers to make real conclusions. As I stated earlier I agree with you that tax rates are needed for real reference, and I'm sure that as with almost any combination of statistics as complicated as this you could make the numbers say anything you want them too with enough massaging. The end result of this is it's really almost impossible to state the US is the most generous or that it isn't without explicitly stating what numbers you're looking at...
Hopefully the jackasses who made the doll will keep the mold hot to make the next one-where Osama isnt smiling so much because of a bullet in his forehead.
Jeez this thing really blew up since I went home for the night. I can't possibly respond to the arguments, counterarguments, questions and insults directed towards me now. I'll just try to mention a few points I thought were key after reading through the rest of this. 1) America's aid to the rest of the world: We can argue all day (I suppose we have) about to what extent we help people around the world. Good points were made and other points that are open to some criticism. I won't mention them because they don't speak to the point I was trying to make when I opened this can of worms. "Someone may even throw in how thankful everyone should be for all the help we give everyone," is what I had said. My objection is to the idea that these countries should be so eternally grateful to us and kiss our asses and never complain about anything we ever do because, once upon a time (or even contemporaneously), we bailed them out. Q8 Rocket is a perfect example of this. Posters here were shocked that he could criticize our stance towards Israel after we 'saved' them from Iraq. He has no right to criticize because he owes us? rochHEAD's initial post has the same flavor. The thread is entitled, "This from the latest WTO member." What I infer from this is that China is only in the WTO because the US let it in and, because we were such nice guys, they owe us the courtesy of not producing these figurines. In reality, one has nothing to do with the other. They don't need to watch what they say around us because of the WTO. In actual fact, they did us as much of a favor in joining the WTO as we did in letting them in. And it is precisely this American attitude of 'you owe us' that has the Chinese making the stupid figurines in the first place. We are a charitable nation, imo. But to what extent is it charity and to what extent is it simply buying goodwill? If the recipients of this help owe us, then don't call it charity; it is bribery. Don't say we do it out of the kindness of our hearts and then turnaround and say we want value for that money. 2) Propaganda: The US employs as much propaganda as the Chinese do. The Chinese are easier to criticize because they don't have the neat division between government and civic spheres that America does. However, it is a mistake to consider the Chinese Government as a monolith. It is a very large system with a lot of departmentalism. Not every order comes down from the General Secretary. So I don't think it being a government enitity that produced the video is siginificant -- there aren't many things produced in China that isn't affiliated with a government entity. Do you remember the hubbub over the Tiennemen Square Massacre? You didn't sense some anti-PRC propaganda in the stories that came from all that? [As for so-called 'brain-washing': Is the procedure the Chinese undergo the same or different from the one that makes Timing and Blastoff think that calling something 'communist' is sufficient to completely debunk something?] 3. Trivializing death: The deaths of 4,000 people in the WTC is not trivial. Nor are the deaths of many times 4,000 people in car accidents. The people in the WTC are no more siginificant than any other group. Don't disregard the deaths -- I do not -- but don't get tied into a knot about it either: we're all going to die. 4. You can find an idiot to say anything: As has been pointed out, the test is not whether a majority of Americans feel a particular way. There is no indication whether any Chinese at all are happy about the deaths (though I imagine some must be). The point of the examples was to show that the Chinese are no different from Americans. The same phenomena you find in China can be found in our own country. Why get self-righteous about idiots in foreign countries when you have so many idiots to criticize right next door? Btw, I never said it was ok for them to celebrate, as some seem to have inferred. I'm just saying don't be offended by it. We, as a corporate body of Americans, do these very same things. It is hypocritical to condemn the same sins we commit when they are committed by others. 5. This comment disturbs me. I won't claim (as some have in the past) that I should have the freedom to write what I like on this board. This is Clutch's forum, not mine, so he can say what stays and what goes. I also dig the concept of publically-enforced conformity -- even though I'm on the losing end of it at the moment. However, in the more general sphere of public debate, I find it very frightening that some would consider open contempt of a government as having no place is democratic civil society. (Though I would point out that, technically, spitting in a person's face could be construed as assault. And spitting in the face of a man who has been trained to kill is just a bad idea. ) Well that's about enough out of me. Maybe I'll post once more but that's it. Looking forward to the responses though. And rH, you were prophetic about my first post in this thread.
Does anyone have the actual figures for foreign aid and what % of GDP it is. Or does anyone at least know where it could be found.
Great Post Juan "We are a charitable nation, imo. But to what extent is it charity and to what extent is it simply buying goodwill? If the recipients of this help owe us, then don't call it charity; it is bribery. Don't say we do it out of the kindness of our hearts and then turnaround and say we want value for that money. " True, True
1) America's aid to the rest of the world: We can argue all day (I suppose we have) about to what extent we help people around the world. Good points were made and other points that are open to some criticism. I won't mention them because they don't speak to the point I was trying to make when I opened this can of worms. "Someone may even throw in how thankful everyone should be for all the help we give everyone," is what I had said. My objection is to the idea that these countries should be so eternally grateful to us and kiss our asses and never complain about anything we ever do because, once upon a time (or even contemporaneously), we bailed them out. Q8 Rocket is a perfect example of this. Posters here were shocked that he could criticize our stance towards Israel after we 'saved' them from Iraq. He has no right to criticize because he owes us? rochHEAD's initial post has the same flavor. The thread is entitled, "This from the latest WTO member." What I infer from this is that China is only in the WTO because the US let it in and, because we were such nice guys, they owe us the courtesy of not producing these figurines. In reality, one has nothing to do with the other. They don't need to watch what they say around us because of the WTO. In actual fact, they did us as much of a favor in joining the WTO as we did in letting them in. And it is precisely this American attitude of 'you owe us' that has the Chinese making the stupid figurines in the first place. We are a charitable nation, imo. But to what extent is it charity and to what extent is it simply buying goodwill? If the recipients of this help owe us, then don't call it charity; it is bribery. Don't say we do it out of the kindness of our hearts and then turnaround and say we want value for that money. I think China owes the world the courtesy of not producing figurines that mock the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians. WTO or not, China has a responsibility to the world to watch what they say and what they do. It's called accountability and China is not exempt from it just because they don't like our "American attitude". 2) PropagandaThe US employs as much propaganda as the Chinese do. The Chinese are easier to criticize because they don't have the neat division between government and civic spheres that America does. However, it is a mistake to consider the Chinese Government as a monolith. It is a very large system with a lot of departmentalism. Not every order comes down from the General Secretary. So I don't think it being a government enitity that produced the video is siginificant -- there aren't many things produced in China that isn't affiliated with a government entity. Do you remember the hubbub over the Tiennemen Square Massacre? You didn't sense some anti-PRC propaganda in the stories that came from all that? [As for so-called 'brain-washing': Is the procedure the Chinese undergo the same or different from the one that makes Timing and Blastoff think that calling something 'communist' is sufficient to completely debunk something?] First of all, Communism has debunked itself. It doesn't need me calling it out. Name a communist nation and I'll show you tyranny, civil rights abuses, and a crap economy. Second of all, China has STATE RUN MEDIA. They're as responsible for what they produce and show as ABC, CBS, or NBC. Accountability. When their government lies about knocking our plane out of the sky and puts on the wife of their dead pilot to demand an apology, that is unrivaled, sickening, communist propaganda and they are to be held accountable for it. They don't get free passes for being an oppressive communist country that can't keep track of it's agencies. 3. Trivializing death: The deaths of 4,000 people in the WTC is not trivial. Nor are the deaths of many times 4,000 people in car accidents. The people in the WTC are no more siginificant than any other group. Don't disregard the deaths -- I do not -- but don't get tied into a knot about it either: we're all going to die. 4,000 people dying in one day from an unparalled terrorist attack is certainly a more significant event than the cummulative deaths of 4,000 people in car accidents over a long period of time. I don't know how you could possibly gauge this any more wrongly. No wars ever started with a car accident.
While I agree with this to a certain extent, I think there is some expectation of common courtesy. If you give a homeless person some money, you would probably not be happy if he gladly accepted it and then flipped you off or slashed your tires or laghed when he saw your mother get hit by a car. It isn't neccessarily that we are buying goodwill, but we would like to be seen at least in somewhat of a positive light.
While I agree this is in extremely poor taste and is very offensive, how is this different (as someone alluded to earlier) from telling ethopian jokes in the 1980's? I know I heard tham all the time and I told some too. I was young and stupid but I still told them. No country is free of stupid people so it makes no sence to say "China owes the world etc. etc. etc." "China" is not making the figurines. Some dude is and others are buying them. Blame them, not China. Now if China is propagandizing the crash as a good thing (and I didn't read the link so I can't really say anything about that) then we could and should mention that in diplomatic channels.
Well I'm not saying that they can't criticize the US, or Americans, or our policies. However, if I'm starving and somebody gives me a sammich, I'm not gonna turn around and spit in their face. And I don't know of a circumstance where I would say 'yeah its a good thing the WTC was attacked.' Pure and simple I don't think that is a reasonable or civilized attitude. I think in this case its the Chinese playing politics much more than if a Palestinian were to say it, and even if it were a Palestinian I STILL don't think is a reasonable point of view. Yeah, it may be true that everything doesn't come from the top, but you can bet that statements like these sure do come from the top. Even Haven pointed out that the Chinese government dictated what would and would not be said about the incident right after it happened. Yeah I remember watching that guy with HUGE ONES stepping in front of a moving tank. I remember pictures of those peaceful demonstrators with paper mache Statue of Liberty's getting mowed down. I remember FIRST HAND accounts coming from those students over the internet. Exactly what is your point? Well, I'm a US citizen so in a zero sum equation I DO value US lives more than any other lives. In a non-zero sum equation I think most of us DO value lives, innocent more than criminal. Non-combatant over combatant. We're all going to die is not a very impressive argument re: whether you should say those people in the Sept 11th attacks DESERVED to die or not. And it seems to be contradictory to say "I do value all life" AND "dont get tied up in a knot about deaths" at the same time. I agree to a point. But rather than saying you think its ok for Chinese to say it because there are Americans who say it, I believe they should both be condemned for saying it. ANYONE who says "Yeah, those innocent people DESERVED what they got" is not a reasonable person engaging in reasonable discourse. If any trace of hypocracy prevented you from acting, you would paralyze all decision making. Decision making does not exist in a theoretical vaccuum. And its not true if we also condemn Americans who say it, and we DO. Regularly. Remember when (I don't remember the moniker) got bounced for saying we should eliminate everyone in the Middle East? As I said to Dylan I take back calling you stupid (unlike Dylan I did RECENTLY call you stupid). I do let my posts get away sometimes. But I feel that some posters take the dissent because its usually the side that's most fun to argue. The WTC attacks and the resulting pain and suffering are not something to joke about. And since it hits home for me, I resent it when it doesn't seem to hit home for you. My father was an immigrant and I think too many Americans take for granted how sweet it is to be ABLE to voice your dissent, and are too ready to jump on all the 'self-righteous' Americans. Its those Americans that think the America IS better than anyone else, and those that think American CAN fix any situation and reach ANY goal, that make the US a beacon of hope for so many people in the world. You think there are a lot of people out there in the world that hate the US. But I guarantee you most would give their left nut to live here. I, at least, have clearly stated that part of what makes the US great is the ability to be in a dissenting group. And to be able to voice that dissent. But I do also think that there is a way to voice that dissent that is constructive and helps our society evolve.
Well I dunno, it might not be different. Although I have heard jokes about the WTC attacks but I think the difference is the intention. The US government can't control comedians or Jay Leno but there is a collective peer pressure in the US that would ruin people who make jokes or comments in poor taste. There weren't any starving Ethiopian Halloween costumes or anything, but if there were, the company or person who made them would get a ton of heat and suffer. China on the other hand controls all the media and obviously can influence their people and control their actions a heck of a lot more than we can. No videos are getting made without the Chinese government allowing it.
Last post (though I'll continue to read). Tiennemen: Do you remember protesters throwing rocks at soldiers, turning over trucks, beating up soldiers and setting them on fire? These things also happened though they didn't get much play in the US while they were covering the crackdown-angle. That's the propaganda I'm referring to. In China, a lot of coverage is given to the violence of the protesters; in the US, the coverage is given to the violence of the government. That all you remember is the one brave student standing before a tank shows the effectivenesss of that propaganda. Death: "Well, I'm a US citizen so in a zero sum equation I DO value US lives more than any other lives. In a non-zero sum equation I think most of us DO value lives, innocent more than criminal. Non-combatant over combatant." This is a major source of our disagreement, imo; and as often happens, this is a difference in axioms more than anything else. I do not value American life over non-American; nor 'innocent' over criminal; nor civilian over military. With so much of this argument boiling down to this valuation, how could we possibly agree? Also, don't take me for some peacenik, all-life-is-sacred type. I am a callous person myself. What I object to is caring about one person's death more than someone else's. I'll make exceptions for personal connections since losing people you are personally connected to punches a hole in one's own life. But, someone random American's death is the same to me as some random Uzbek's. Stupidity and fun: Don't worry, I didn't take offense at being called stupid. I can tell you were feeling passionate. As for me, if you doubt my sincerity, do a search for my other posts about terrorists and Afghanistan. I've been arguing this same thing for a month and a half. If I'm joking, I've been doing it for a long while. Thanks: Thanks one and all for the lively discussion. Thanks, haven, for getting my back though your communist reputation isn't helping me. Hayes, Timing, et al, while I can tell you very much believe I'm wrong (in general anway; all I was trying to say to begin with is that the figurine's creation is the manifestation of a human evil we can see in the States), I assure you that I'm right. But it seems hopeless for any of us to convince the other because it relies heavily on very basic philosophical axioms (eg, what is sin? what is the value of life? is man inherently evil? -- maybe I'll start a thread to tackle the basics). So, I thank you for the conversation, but I'll have to leave it unresolved.
It's always nice when someone assures you they are right but can't substantiate it. Your Tiennemen reference is a great example of the tyranny of communism. These protestors were pro-democracy students and they did not hunt down a division of Chinese soldiers to pelt them with rocks. It was the Chinese military that shot their way into the square with tanks and machine guns. That is not propaganda. It's clear that their intention was not to control a protest but rather to stop the movement of political reform that was sweeping China at the time. The Chinese government still persecutes and murders these pro-democracy advocates today.
