'Special Relationship' between the USA and Britain is over

[The Dark Lord]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8590767.stm

 

The UK government needs to be "less deferential" towards the US and more willing to say no to Washington, a group of MPs have said.

 

The Commons Foreign Affairs committee also said it was wrong to speak of "the special relationship" with the US, as it was fostering other alliances.

 

However, the MPs did agree that the link between the countries was "profound and valuable".

 

The Foreign Office said the two nations share a "unique" bond.

 

The committee said the phrase "the special relationship" did not reflect the "modern" Anglo-American relationship.

 

It was originally coined more than 60 years ago by Winston Churchill.

 

'Potentially misleading'

 

The committee said although Britain and the US still had close ties, the UK's influence had "diminished" as its economic and military power had waned.

 

"The use of the phrase 'the special relationship' in its historical sense, to describe the totality of the ever-evolving UK-US relationship, is potentially misleading, and we recommend that its use should be avoided," the committee said.

 

"The overuse of the phrase by some politicians and many in the media serves simultaneously to de-value its meaning and to raise unrealistic expectations about the benefits the relationship can deliver to the UK."

 

Three Labour MPs and two Conservatives voted unsuccessfully for the recommendation to be dropped but were over-ruled.

 

The committee said that the relationship was more associated now with the perceived support Britain gave to President George W Bush over the Iraq war.

 

"The perception that the British government was a subservient 'poodle' to the US administration leading up to the period of the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath is widespread both among the British public and overseas," it said.

 

"This perception, whatever its relation to reality, is deeply damaging to the reputation and interests of the UK."

 

The committee also said US President Barack Obama had taken the same "pragmatic" attitude as it was recommending now since entering the White House in 2009.

 

It said: "The UK needs to be less deferential and more willing to say no to the US on those issues where the two countries' interests and values diverge.

 

"The UK's relationship should be principally driven by the UK's national interests within individual policy areas. It needs to be characterised by a hard-headed political approach to the relationship and a realistic sense of the UK's limits."

 

Committee chairman Mike Gapes said: "We must be realistic and accept that globalisation, structural changes and shifts in geopolitical power will inevitably affect the UK-US relationship.

 

"Over the longer-term, the UK is unlikely to be able to influence the US to the extent it has in the past."

 

'Unique'

 

A Foreign Office spokeswoman said the British media's "preoccupation" with the state of the relationship was often at the "expense of coverage of the more substantive aspects of the relationship".

 

"It doesn't really matter whether someone calls it 'the special relationship' or not," she said.

 

"What matters is that the UK's relationship with the US is unique, and uniquely important to protecting our national security and promoting our national interest."

 

Sir Winston had first coined the phrase during his famous "Iron Curtain" speech in March 1946.

 

He had been inspired by the countries' shared struggle against Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

 

And throughout the Cold War, cultural and historical similarities, diplomatic consultation and defence and nuclear co-operation meant that Anglo-American relations were particularly close.

 

 

Kudos to the United Kingdom for standing up for itself and not constantly saying 'yes' to our government's [wagon] shenanigans.

 

Now if only the United Kingdom would reassert its position as a world power or (better yet) bring back the British Empire.

[The Dark Lord]

Doesn't matter either way England is doomed, Piece of crap country it is!

 

It's kind of off-topic, but the UK is too submissive to the wills of immigrants, in my opinion. A KFC restaurant in Burton-on-Trent stopped serving bacon because it offended Muslims. You would think that it would be as simple as people just ordering something else that doesn't have bacon, but apparently bacon has to be banned altogether. :rolleyes:

[Alg]

Hopefully this ends well for both countries.

[The Dark Lord]

Hopefully this ends well for both countries.

 

Well, it should. The British government still describes the US-UK relationship as 'unique', but they're just pointing out that the 'Special Relationship' is an outdated term that was coined by Winston Churchill. The United Kingdom seems to have dwindling influence on the United States. The USA, for the most part, has replaced the now defunct British Empire. Likewise, the US government could easily twist the 'Special Relationship' around and use it to con the British into fighting American-led wars. They did it with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

 

I could not imagine a future in which the US and the Brits were enemies again. The Anglo-American alliance is too valuable, not to mention that the United States shares too much history with England.

[Furah]

Doesn't matter either way England is doomed, Piece of crap country it is!

 

It's kind of off-topic, but the UK is too submissive to the wills of immigrants, in my opinion. A KFC restaurant in Burton-on-Trent stopped serving bacon because it offended Muslims. You would think that it would be as simple as people just ordering something else that doesn't have bacon, but apparently bacon has to be banned altogether. :rolleyes:

If that happens here I'm never setting foot in a KFC again. I love the Barbeque Bacon Rollers. Om nom nom nom. ^__^

[Tim]

Now let's see Australia grow a back bone against boat people flooding in. (and go the UK)

[Skully]

I live in England, and I think it's pretty safe to say in a few years time we will be the least English country there is, hence why I would love to leave.

[Rainy_Day]

Woah, no need for the UK bashing or randomly accusing a member of supporting the BNP (though if they do, that's up to them, it's not illegal :unsure: ).

 

Anyway, I think we follow America in too much, especially the wars. They're a good country to be an ally with, but they aren't the best to deal with at times.

 

@ Serephurus; KFC is an American company if I recall correctly (so our Government can barely order them to sell pork/normal meat), and they made the decision to sell halal meat, thus not selling pork in the building. They are only doing it as a trial for a few months in a few stores, though I do think it is stupid/rediculous that they are doing it.

[SeanyTheSailor]

While I applaud England for standing up to us or (the US) I'm kind of curious as to what they meant by

"The UK needs to be less deferential and more willing to say no to the US on those issues where the two countries' interests and values diverge.

 

As i don't live in the UK I don't know what there interests are but this implies to me that is has happened recently or is happening now. Also out of curiosity what brings up this statement?

[The Dark Lord]

@ Serephurus; KFC is an American company if I recall correctly (so our Government can barely order them to sell pork/normal meat), and they made the decision to sell halal meat, thus not selling pork in the building. They are only doing it as a trial for a few months in a few stores, though I do think it is stupid/rediculous that they are doing it.

 

KFC is an American company, yes. Now that I think about it, they're also struggling to survive in the United States; many branches have closed down. I have only seen a KFC franchise operating inside another franchise such as Taco Bell in the past few years, although there are some independent branches still operating. They probably just assume that if they cater to Muslims in pockets around England, they can get more customers. It's still ridiculous, though.

 

As for the BNP comment, I do not support them nor do I believe that they should be voted for due to their shady past. Although I do think that English Nationalism is the only thing that will save England at this point in time. The UK needs to immediately withdraw from the EUSSR (as it is jokingly called) and focus on taking care of its problems. Otherwise, England is doomed (which would make the entire UK doomed since England is the most influential nation). I was trying to grasp just how crowded England is, so I compared it to the size of my home state and got a pretty close match. England has about 40-50 million people, and my home state (Arkansas) only has about 3 million people. It's hard for me to imagine 50 million people living here!

[tortilliachp]

While I applaud England for standing up to us or (the US) I'm kind of curious as to what they meant by

"The UK needs to be less deferential and more willing to say no to the US on those issues where the two countries' interests and values diverge.

 

As i don't live in the UK I don't know what there interests are but this implies to me that is has happened recently or is happening now. Also out of curiosity what brings up this statement?

 

Europe and america have completely different ideologies. The american ideology is not appealing to the citizens of europe because it seems morally bankrupt to those of us over here. Human rights stand strong in Europe, self-determination stands strong in america. Therefore you have social security nets in europe, and not in america, because that's what the people of america don't want.

 

America moved away from isolationism in the 1950s in favour of open-door policy. Especially after 9/11, this policy has become, what I (as a european) would call aggressive. especially the UK has a strong history for isolationism, and the attitude remains with the people, as can be seen in their immigration debate, and common opinion that Britain is becoming less british every day.

 

Further, many americans are missing the bigger picture of a global world. Their understanding of the world and their position in it is diestored. Lacking knowledge about the rest of the world is off-putting to Europeans who wish to seem progressive. Europe also needs the image of being progressive to hold a global position of significance, which we obviously want, as we view ourselves as a highground for moral responsibility and accountability.

[The Dark Lord]

While I applaud England for standing up to us or (the US) I'm kind of curious as to what they meant by

"The UK needs to be less deferential and more willing to say no to the US on those issues where the two countries' interests and values diverge.

 

As i don't live in the UK I don't know what there interests are but this implies to me that is has happened recently or is happening now. Also out of curiosity what brings up this statement?

 

Europe and america have completely different ideologies. The american ideology is not appealing to the citizens of europe because it seems morally bankrupt to those of us over here. Human rights stand strong in Europe, self-determination stands strong in america. Therefore you have social security nets in europe, and not in america, because that's what the people of america don't want.

 

America moved away from isolationism in the 1950s in favour of open-door policy. Especially after 9/11, this policy has become, what I (as a european) would call aggressive. especially the UK has a strong history for isolationism, and the attitude remains with the people, as can be seen in their immigration debate, and common opinion that Britain is becoming less british every day.

 

Further, many americans are missing the bigger picture of a global world. Their understanding of the world and their position in it is diestored. Lacking knowledge about the rest of the world is off-putting to Europeans who wish to seem progressive. Europe also needs the image of being progressive to hold a global position of significance, which we obviously want, as we view ourselves as a highground for moral responsibility and accountability.

 

It's ironic because our government (which I would describe as having a large Hawk lobby) is constantly trying to interfere in the politics of other nations, which is blatantly against the doctrine of Self-Determination. Of course, they argue that we're only carrying out the wishes of the foreign masses by toppling their dictatorships; regardless, it's destroying our nation. Likewise, there are still a lot of people that don't support the Open-Door policy. All it is doing is contributing to an eventual over-population of the continental US, and with our 'Hawks', I am worried about the future of Canada.

 

We're not what we used to be; we used to be an intellectual, great nation.

[Jernlov]

As for the BNP comment, I do not support them nor do I believe that they should be voted for due to their shady past. Although I do think that English Nationalism is the only thing that will save England at this point in time. The UK needs to immediately withdraw from the EUSSR (as it is jokingly called) and focus on taking care of its problems. Otherwise, England is doomed (which would make the entire UK doomed since England is the most influential nation). I was trying to grasp just how crowded England is, so I compared it to the size of my home state and got a pretty close match. England has about 40-50 million people, and my home state (Arkansas) only has about 3 million people. It's hard for me to imagine 50 million people living here!

 

As someone who has lived in England all of my life, I find this opinion a bit awkward. I genuinely like where I live despite its problems, which is something that Americans can never seem to grasp properly. I don't think my quality of life would improve at all if I went anywhere else. Sure, the whole "Orwellian state" bullcrap is a bit concerning, but we have not turned into a cotton wool state like Australia. The media makes our problems seem a lot bigger than they actually are.

 

First off, the problem is that we lack any sort of balance politically. We have two (three) large, centrist parties but only very small extreme left and extreme right parties. Unlike our neighbouring countries, we have no socially left/socially right parties that we can reasonably vote for because people here are obsessed with the Tories, whereas people in Scotland and Wales have their two socially left national parties, Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru, in power. Right-wing nationalism is definitely not the answer to England's problems in the slightest - do you actually understand fully what the BNP stands for? Nick Griffin keeps on spouting his "indigenous British" rubbish when there are, in fact, absolutely no "indigenous British" people in existence. Most people in Britain are of Anglo-Saxon descent, followed by the Cornish and Welsh (Britons - but still not indigenous British!) and then Gaels (Scottish, Irish). Their idea of indigenous British is, in short, "being white and being born in Britain;" they seek to remove anyone who is not any of these things. The reason they are coming into power is because people are disenchanted with our appalling immigration control; yes, even I am, but it is not a reason to vote a party such as the BNP into power.

 

Second, withdrawing from the EU would only hurt the country. I don't mind a bit of Euro-scepticism, but seriously? We have a shattered economy and a huge national debt, and I think withdrawing from the Union would only worsen those issues. "EUSSR," huh? Really funny. I'm not even going to bother with arguing this because it was a silly thing to insinuate in the first place.

 

Third, overcrowding is largely a city problem. I live out in one of the most sparsely populated areas of England, and even the county town isn't what I would call "overcrowded." It's true that walking through any of our major cities is often like walking into a completely different country, but it is honestly not something I consciously think about. I don't think many people consciously think about overcrowding. We've had a relatively high population density for a while and you learn to live with it.

 

England and the UK could be so much worse, and it is something that people who don't live here can't understand.

[Alg]

It's ironic because our government (which I would describe as having a large Hawk lobby) is constantly trying to interfere in the politics of other nations, which is blatantly against the doctrine of Self-Determination. Of course, they argue that we're only carrying out the wishes of the foreign masses by toppling their dictatorships; regardless, it's destroying our nation. Likewise, there are still a lot of people that don't support the Open-Door policy. All it is doing is contributing to an eventual over-population of the continental US, and with our 'Hawks', I am worried about the future of Canada.

 

We're not what we used to be; we used to be an intellectual, great nation.

Still in the cold war maybe? We still have to go in and fight the commiez! We're still the only superpower that isn't red!

If that's the case though it's probably because a lot of our older generation, especially the ones in politics, lived through it constantly. When a younger generation that didn't experience it takes over, things might change. And now there's going to be an entire generation of early '90s kids that can vote, so (Ideally) it might come soon.

 

Seems kind of like we have all this power and influence over here but nothing to do with it. Either that or we have little power and influence but everything to use it on. No more clear enemy or rival to challenge ourselves with.

[1_man_army]

I love how England is being used as shorthand for the UK in this thread at times. I'm sure all Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish people don't mind that at all...

[SeanyTheSailor]

While I applaud England for standing up to us or (the US) I'm kind of curious as to what they meant by

"The UK needs to be less deferential and more willing to say no to the US on those issues where the two countries' interests and values diverge.

 

As i don't live in the UK I don't know what there interests are but this implies to me that is has happened recently or is happening now. Also out of curiosity what brings up this statement?

 

Europe and america have completely different ideologies. The american ideology is not appealing to the citizens of europe because it seems morally bankrupt to those of us over here. Human rights stand strong in Europe, self-determination stands strong in america. Therefore you have social security nets in europe, and not in america, because that's what the people of america don't want.

 

America moved away from isolationism in the 1950s in favour of open-door policy. Especially after 9/11, this policy has become, what I (as a european) would call aggressive. especially the UK has a strong history for isolationism, and the attitude remains with the people, as can be seen in their immigration debate, and common opinion that Britain is becoming less british every day.

 

Further, many americans are missing the bigger picture of a global world. Their understanding of the world and their position in it is diestored. Lacking knowledge about the rest of the world is off-putting to Europeans who wish to seem progressive. Europe also needs the image of being progressive to hold a global position of significance, which we obviously want, as we view ourselves as a highground for moral responsibility and accountability.

While our system does seem to lack morality I believe it is because Americans believe in the pursuit of happiness. Many if not most families have rag to "riches" stories about how their ancestors came over and worked their life away so that their children could have a better life. What is happening now is that the government is trying to just GIVE people that by taking a little from everyone. I like to think of America as a canvas, you can come here and paint just about anything you want, but some people want someone else to paint most of that picture for them. Problem is there is only so much paint to go around so we can't paint our own picture as well. My dad has worked 2 or 3 jobs for I don't even know how long and he has saved up 2000 dollars for me my sister and my half brother, he would prefer for school but we can do what we want with it. He was not given this by anyone else and he didn't ask for it. I have no problems with treating people well and even helping out, but when I am forced to help out I have a problem.

[The Dark Lord]

I love how England is being used as shorthand for the UK in this thread at times. I'm sure all Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish people don't mind that at all...

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2O5rCjTa6v4

 

It's still a term that's used in my area to refer to the United Kingdom as a whole. I used to think that people were just being ignorant and didn't realize that there were other nations that made up the UK, but I found out that the term is just used due to England's overwhelming influence over the entirety of Britain. Of course, this isn't to say that it is "politically-incorrect", but it has been a "correct" term for centuries, so... People will still use it, despite it being offensive to Scottish, Welsh, and Irish nationalists, even though they don't mean to offend.

 

Many if not most families have rag to "riches" stories about how their ancestors came over and worked their life away so that their children could have a better life.

 

I'm not sure how accurate you could say that applies to today's America, but there are indeed a lot of families that came to America decades ago in pursuit of a better quality of life, whether it be due to overcrowding in Europe or something else. I think that you are right when you say that this is one of the reasons why social reforms are a touchy subject. You would think that it would be the other way around, but a lot of families say "My family came from Ireland in pursuit of a better quality of life during the Potato Famine. I don't see why the government should force me to give my family's hard-earned money to just anybody. We were expected to earn mere cents an hour at a New York factory when we came over here; I don't see why they can't do the same!" It's an argument that I hear very often. Other than that, people are afraid of over-taxation because the money has to come from somewhere in order to fund the social welfare programs... It may seem selfish (mostly referring to my example about an Irish family), but I believe that it is a legitimate concern for some families.

[tortilliachp]

 

While our system does seem to lack morality I believe it is because Americans believe in the pursuit of happiness. Many if not most families have rag to "riches" stories about how their ancestors came over and worked their life away so that their children could have a better life. What is happening now is that the government is trying to just GIVE people that by taking a little from everyone. I like to think of America as a canvas, you can come here and paint just about anything you want, but some people want someone else to paint most of that picture for them. Problem is there is only so much paint to go around so we can't paint our own picture as well. My dad has worked 2 or 3 jobs for I don't even know how long and he has saved up 2000 dollars for me my sister and my half brother, he would prefer for school but we can do what we want with it. He was not given this by anyone else and he didn't ask for it. I have no problems with treating people well and even helping out, but when I am forced to help out I have a problem.

so you're actually saying that the system does seem to lack morality, but it is actually moral, because when someone tells you what to do, even if you would do it otherwise, you shouldn't do it becasue then you're not "sticking it to the man" ? I don't think i follow the logic in your post. would you mind explaining it in other terms?

 

 

"My family came from Ireland in pursuit of a better quality of life during the Potato Famine. I don't see why the government should force me to give my family's hard-earned money to just anybody. We were expected to earn mere cents an hour at a New York factory when we came over here; I don't see why they can't do the same!" It's an argument that I hear very often. Other than that, people are afraid of over-taxation because the money has to come from somewhere in order to fund the social welfare programs... It may seem selfish (mostly referring to my example about an Irish family), but I believe that it is a legitimate concern for some families.

 

unless these policies were incredibly flawed, those with legitimate concerns would be the ones earning the most from the social programs. that's the irony: they are the ones ensuring they will never get benefits. The rich are the ones who will selfishly reject social programs because, well, they are the ones paying for most of the welfare for othres, and have enough as it is, so they would recieve very little...

[Jeffery]

Doesn't matter either way England is doomed, Piece of crap country it is! Can't even keep the illegal immigrants out.

 

P.S I'm from England myself not trolling, so don't delete the post again..

[SeanyTheSailor]

so you're actually saying that the system does seem to lack morality, but it is actually moral, because when someone tells you what to do, even if you would do it otherwise, you shouldn't do it becasue then you're not "sticking it to the man" ? I don't think i follow the logic in your post. would you mind explaining it in other terms?

I'm saying forced charity isn't really charity at all. And it sort of goes both ways, it seems morally right to give these people all of these things, but not when they get them by taking them away from other people. I'll happily do community service and maybe even donate some money to a charity, next year I'll probably give blood, but you see I'm not obligated to do those things and I'm giving not being taken from. See? I realize where it seems kind of confusing. I can't think of a better way to explain it.

[tortilliachp]

so you're actually saying that the system does seem to lack morality, but it is actually moral, because when someone tells you what to do, even if you would do it otherwise, you shouldn't do it becasue then you're not "sticking it to the man" ? I don't think i follow the logic in your post. would you mind explaining it in other terms?

I'm saying forced charity isn't really charity at all. And it sort of goes both ways, it seems morally right to give these people all of these things, but not when they get them by taking them away from other people. I'll happily do community service and maybe even donate some money to a charity, next year I'll probably give blood, but you see I'm not obligated to do those things and I'm giving not being taken from. See? I realize where it seems kind of confusing. I can't think of a better way to explain it.

 

forced charity still gets the work done though. I don't think it's about the fuzzy feeling of giving, it's about doing the right thing. If people can't do the right thing (murder, theft, defamation, stinge their taxes, threats, violence etc.), society makes them, in most other cases. why shouldn't society ensure at least a minimum of filanthropy or charity on your part, much less than what the average person says is ideologically right to give to the poor (as long as it doesn't come from themselves)? If Iran doesn't want to do the right thing, don't we make them do the right thing so the right thing gets done?

 

The reality is, if you make it voluntary, you get less charity overall, because people are generally greedy. Even if the few feel good for giving, the selfish many get away living morally bankrupt lives at the expenditure of others. As said, there is only so much paint and canvas to go around, you are effectively ensuring someone else's poverty by being rich. That's people should be obligated, not only morally to help the less fortunate at all, because they are materilistic and won't do it otherwise. Yes, giving blood is certainly a different matter. Even many churches make you pay tithe, because they realize they won't get the donations they require otherwise.

 

It's not like i can choose not to pay taxes making roads, because i feel greener alternatives (railroad) should be expanded instead. Why should i be able to choose that the unfortunate few don't get my money? what's the difference of that, and paying for a road i'll never even know is built? I don't see the logic. What i do see, is the selfish right to keep my own money, and substituting arguments for why things should remain as they are.

[SeanyTheSailor]

so you're actually saying that the system does seem to lack morality, but it is actually moral, because when someone tells you what to do, even if you would do it otherwise, you shouldn't do it becasue then you're not "sticking it to the man" ? I don't think i follow the logic in your post. would you mind explaining it in other terms?

I'm saying forced charity isn't really charity at all. And it sort of goes both ways, it seems morally right to give these people all of these things, but not when they get them by taking them away from other people. I'll happily do community service and maybe even donate some money to a charity, next year I'll probably give blood, but you see I'm not obligated to do those things and I'm giving not being taken from. See? I realize where it seems kind of confusing. I can't think of a better way to explain it.

 

forced charity still gets the work done though. I don't think it's about the fuzzy feeling of giving, it's about doing the right thing. If people can't do the right thing (murder, theft, defamation, stinge their taxes, threats, violence etc.), society makes them, in most other cases. why shouldn't society ensure at least a minimum of filanthropy or charity on your part, much less than what the average person says is ideologically right to give to the poor (as long as it doesn't come from themselves)? If Iran doesn't want to do the right thing, don't we make them do the right thing so the right thing gets done?

 

The reality is, if you make it voluntary, you get less charity overall, because people are generally greedy. Even if the few feel good for giving, the selfish many get away living morally bankrupt lives at the expenditure of others. As said, there is only so much paint and canvas to go around, you are effectively ensuring someone else's poverty by being rich. That's people should be obligated, not only morally to help the less fortunate at all, because they are materilistic and won't do it otherwise. Yes, giving blood is certainly a different matter. Even many churches make you pay tithe, because they realize they won't get the donations they require otherwise.

 

It's not like i can choose not to pay taxes making roads, because i feel greener alternatives (railroad) should be expanded instead. Why should i be able to choose that the unfortunate few don't get my money? what's the difference of that, and paying for a road i'll never even know is built? I don't see the logic. What i do see, is the selfish right to keep my own money, and substituting arguments for why things should remain as they are.

But who decides what is the right thing? Why is it ok to take from me and give to someone else? Why does he deserve it more than me? And how do you know no one would give more? If you have more to give the times that you do give wouldn't you naturally give more? If you have 10 dollars in you wallet and had a great waitress, but you need to pick up a gallon of milk, lets say you give her a 3 dollar tip, Now lets say you have 20 dollars and need a gallon of milk, would you not be inclined to give her 5 maybe even 6 dollars? I live near Pittsburgh, so lets take Andrew Carnegie for an example. He treated his workers very poorly and amassed a huge fortune, later in his life however he sort of turned around and donated loads of cash. Just to think of a few things he donated to create, Carnegie Science Center, Carnegie Library, and more. Obviously not everyone is going to have a sudden change of heart but you could see how even "bad" or "mean" people can contribute to the greater good. If you think about it its human nature if you have more to give more in just about anything, if you have more time to talk, you're going to talk more, if you have more food to eat, you'll give everyone some more. So in my opinion saying "if it isn't mandatory you'll get less" isn't true at all.

[tortilliachp]

But who decides what is the right thing? Why is it ok to take from me and give to someone else? Why does he deserve it more than me? And how do you know no one would give more? If you have more to give the times that you do give wouldn't you naturally give more? If you have 10 dollars in you wallet and had a great waitress, but you need to pick up a gallon of milk, lets say you give her a 3 dollar tip, Now lets say you have 20 dollars and need a gallon of milk, would you not be inclined to give her 5 maybe even 6 dollars? I live near Pittsburgh, so lets take Andrew Carnegie for an example. He treated his workers very poorly and amassed a huge fortune, later in his life however he sort of turned around and donated loads of cash. Just to think of a few things he donated to create, Carnegie Science Center, Carnegie Library, and more. Obviously not everyone is going to have a sudden change of heart but you could see how even "bad" or "mean" people can contribute to the greater good. If you think about it its human nature if you have more to give more in just about anything, if you have more time to talk, you're going to talk more, if you have more food to eat, you'll give everyone some more. So in my opinion saying "if it isn't mandatory you'll get less" isn't true at all.

 

Since many in philanthropy lack the time and opportunity to study the history and

basic shape of American giving as a whole, lets consider some essential facts about

giving in the U.S.

How much, and how does it compare?

Total amount of giving in 2003 (including corporate, individual, foundation, and

bequest giving): $240.7 billion

Average number of days it took the U.S. government to spend $240.7 billion

in 2003: 41

Total revenues of Wal-Mart in 2003: $244 billion

Total foundation giving in 2003: $26.3 billion

Total market value of Google at the end of its first day of public trading: $27.2 billion

Estimated total amount sent by U.S. immigrants back to their countries of origin in

2002: $30 billion

Total giving by Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller during their lifetimes (in

2003 dollars): $14 billion

Total federal spending in 1910 (in 2003 dollars): $13 billion

Total amount given or pledged by Bill and Melinda Gates by 2003: $23 billion

Total federal spending in 2003: $2.16 trillion

Number of times todays two wealthiest Americans, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet,

would have to give away their entire fortunes to equal Carnegie and Rockefellers

contributions relative to government spending in their day: 30

 

Doesn't the majority decide what is the right thing, or the courts, or a combination of both? they certainly do in all other maters that aren't fiscal. That delegation of responsibility is the price you pay for participating in society. you are certainly free to remove yourself from our fiscal system and live in the wilderness if you choose to. you could move to a different country, if that is the only way of ensuring your freedom.

 

he deserves more than you, because you already have more than him, and will remain having more than him even if gets this little bit. He also needs it, for you it is luxury. The human right for a livable life is not something you should take lightly upon limiting.

 

in real terms, the numbers speak for themselves. you do get less. Look at Europe, that's the whole story here: by forcing people to donate (through taxes, and taxes again having 1% of GDP going to aid), more money gets donated per GDP, per dollar, per capita, per everything from the socially including standpoint, than from the system you advocate. All the theoretical scenarios you can create cannot argue the facts of today. The numbers also contradict your opinion, which might be a good reason to re-examine your opinion, as the real world seems to differ in its "opinion".

 

Just think if the richest 1% in the US were forced to donate 1% of their wealth to charity every year. They would donate more, because they'd have to donate more than they do on average today. Just bill gates and Warren buffet alone would be over 6 billion dollars...They have pledged more, and certainly would anyway, being rich gives you moral responsibility: you can directly change the outcome of the world, or indrectly be held accountable (reasonably so) for doing nothing and being greedy.

[SeanyTheSailor]

But who decides what is the right thing? Why is it ok to take from me and give to someone else? Why does he deserve it more than me? And how do you know no one would give more? If you have more to give the times that you do give wouldn't you naturally give more? If you have 10 dollars in you wallet and had a great waitress, but you need to pick up a gallon of milk, lets say you give her a 3 dollar tip, Now lets say you have 20 dollars and need a gallon of milk, would you not be inclined to give her 5 maybe even 6 dollars? I live near Pittsburgh, so lets take Andrew Carnegie for an example. He treated his workers very poorly and amassed a huge fortune, later in his life however he sort of turned around and donated loads of cash. Just to think of a few things he donated to create, Carnegie Science Center, Carnegie Library, and more. Obviously not everyone is going to have a sudden change of heart but you could see how even "bad" or "mean" people can contribute to the greater good. If you think about it its human nature if you have more to give more in just about anything, if you have more time to talk, you're going to talk more, if you have more food to eat, you'll give everyone some more. So in my opinion saying "if it isn't mandatory you'll get less" isn't true at all.

 

Since many in philanthropy lack the time and opportunity to study the history and

basic shape of American giving as a whole, lets consider some essential facts about

giving in the U.S.

How much, and how does it compare?

Total amount of giving in 2003 (including corporate, individual, foundation, and

bequest giving): $240.7 billion

Average number of days it took the U.S. government to spend $240.7 billion

in 2003: 41

Total revenues of Wal-Mart in 2003: $244 billion

Total foundation giving in 2003: $26.3 billion

Total market value of Google at the end of its first day of public trading: $27.2 billion

Estimated total amount sent by U.S. immigrants back to their countries of origin in

2002: $30 billion

Total giving by Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller during their lifetimes (in

2003 dollars): $14 billion

Total federal spending in 1910 (in 2003 dollars): $13 billion

Total amount given or pledged by Bill and Melinda Gates by 2003: $23 billion

Total federal spending in 2003: $2.16 trillion

Number of times todays two wealthiest Americans, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet,

would have to give away their entire fortunes to equal Carnegie and Rockefellers

contributions relative to government spending in their day: 30

 

Doesn't the majority decide what is the right thing, or the courts, or a combination of both? they certainly do in all other maters that aren't fiscal. That delegation of responsibility is the price you pay for participating in society. you are certainly free to remove yourself from our fiscal system and live in the wilderness if you choose to. you could move to a different country, if that is the only way of ensuring your freedom.

 

he deserves more than you, because you already have more than him, and will remain having more than him even if gets this little bit. He also needs it, for you it is luxury. The human right for a livable life is not something you should take lightly upon limiting.

 

in real terms, the numbers speak for themselves. you do get less. Look at Europe, that's the whole story here: by forcing people to donate (through taxes, and taxes again having 1% of GDP going to aid), more money gets donated per GDP, per dollar, per capita, per everything from the socially including standpoint, than from the system you advocate. All the theoretical scenarios you can create cannot argue the facts of today. The numbers also contradict your opinion, which might be a good reason to re-examine your opinion, as the real world seems to differ in its "opinion".

 

Just think if the richest 1% in the US were forced to donate 1% of their wealth to charity every year. They would donate more, because they'd have to donate more than they do on average today. Just bill gates and Warren buffet alone would be over 6 billion dollars...They have pledged more, and certainly would anyway, being rich gives you moral responsibility: you can directly change the outcome of the world, or indrectly be held accountable (reasonably so) for doing nothing and being greedy.

This tells me the government is probably spending WAY too much. So Bill Gates gave away 23 billion huh? So if the worlds population was 6.3billion that means everyone in the worlds could have 2 dollars and 6 cents right? Now in America that could probably buy you a small meal at your local McDonald's. In other parts of the world where a dollar is worth a lot more you could probably eat well for a month. And once again he deserves it because I have more than him? Lets see how that holds up in a courtroom, where how you said what is right and wrong could be decided. How much you wanna bet they'd call it stealing?

[The Dark Lord]

unless these policies were incredibly flawed, those with legitimate concerns would be the ones earning the most from the social programs. that's the irony: they are the ones ensuring they will never get benefits. The rich are the ones who will selfishly reject social programs because, well, they are the ones paying for most of the welfare for othres, and have enough as it is, so they would recieve very little...

 

To be fair, you can't really blanket every family with this statement. There's a legitimate concern about over-taxation. There are thousands of other families across America with the financial problems. I wouldn't call them all greedy.

 

Of course, corporations WILL always argue against social bills and spread their propaganda, but you can't blanket everyone by saying only the corporations or rich snobs do it.

 

-----------

 

Concerning the above argument, it would be responsible to require everyone above the age of 17 (with no medical problems that can contaminate the blood) to donate their blood to the local Red Cross center. Would it be fair to expect everyone to donate their blood? It would certainly save thousands of lives, but how would a person feel when they are required by law to donate their blood?

 

It's just a little argument that I thought should be thrown out there.

 

EDIT:

 

We've been pretty off-topic.

 

Anyway, I'm not necessarily against social programs such as those in Canada and the UK (NHS, universal healthcare, etc), but there is a legitimate concern among many individuals. A lot of it may very well be unfounded fears spread through the corporatist propaganda machine, but something that works in one country probably won't work in ours. Due to mass immigration and population growth, we have between 300-400 million people living in the United States. If we implemented universal healthcare, waiting lists for vital treatments may be a lot longer than they are in Canada or the UK. We have a population several times larger than the aforementioned countries. It might very well turn out to be a nightmare for US citizens. I also can't really say that the NHS or Canadian healthcare system are very great since I have never dealt with them.