What will the real 22nd Century look like?

[KJbushway]

Well one the deficit is going down, Clinton did reduce the deficit of his time. However, he didn't have to fix a deficit so great left over from bush senior, as Obama is dealing with the idiocy of bush Jr. Who the hell lowers taxes during a dual war?

I agree 100% on the reality show thing, we don't need the younger generation thinking being orange duchbags and sluts to be a good thing.

 

[T'Girl]

Who the hell lowers taxes during a dual war?

You lower taxes when you want to increase tax revenues of course, something Bush fully realized and Obama just can't seem to grasp.

Under Coolidge (Republican), marginal tax rates were cut from the top rate of 73% to 24%. The economy expanding 59% . Revenues received by the federal treasury increased by 61%.

Under Kennedy (Democrat), marginal tax rates were cut from a top rate of 91% to 70%. The economy grew by 42%,. Tax revenue increased by 62%.

Under Reagan (Republican), marginal tax rates were cut from a top of 70% to 28%. Revenues (from all taxes) to the U.S. Treasury nearly doubled. Revenues increased from roughly $500 billion in 1980 to $1.1 trillion in 1990.

.

 

[Barbreader]

Bill Clinton was the first President to balance the budget since 1969, when our top tax rate was 70 per cent on the highest earners. The time before that was 1960, when our top tax rate on our highest earners was 91 per cent. People today are convinced that if the top tax rate goes back to the 39 per cent it was under Clinton, the economy will collapse, and that suggesting that raising taxes makes you a socialist. I don't think Clinton could balance the budget in today's political climate, either. He raised taxes, and so did George H. W. Bush, and both of them cut government spending. In other words, they did things that were not politically popular. You can't get to balance by cutting "Waste fraud, and abuse" unless you define that as meaning you eliminate Social Security, large parts of the military budget, and Medicare. As it is, most people are voting this year to put the Republicans back in office, who cut taxes AND raised spending, are were the only people in history to cut taxes in wartime, let alone while fighting TWO wars.

So if you are expecting a better budget situation, forget it. We built a massive highway system, had a space program, lowered the national poverty rate, improved the typical American's standard of living, and had an economy that grew much faster in the past, but we had much higher taxes on high earners and very high estate taxes (which the nation now calls, "death taxes" because it wants to return to the days of inherited aristocracy).

The United States isn't the nation it was then. We had this idea of civil responsibility then. We paid taxes and we had a military draft. You lived your life expecting to make sacrifices for the welfare of all. Today, if you suggest that, you are a red commie, and good is defined by Atlas Shrugged and the far right, who believes that everyone smart is nasty and vicious and one hundred per cent out for themselves while quoting very selected parts of the Bible.

 

[Barbreader]

Who the hell lowers taxes during a dual war?

You lower taxes when you want to increase tax revenues of course, something Bush fully realized and Obama just can't seem to grasp.

Under Coolidge (Republican), marginal tax rates were cut from the top rate of 73% to 24%. The economy expanding 59% . Revenues received by the federal treasury increased by 61%.

Under Kennedy (Democrat), marginal tax rates were cut from a top rate of 91% to 70%. The economy grew by 42%,. Tax revenue increased by 62%.

Under Reagan (Republican), marginal tax rates were cut from a top of 70% to 28%. Revenues (from all taxes) to the U.S. Treasury nearly doubled. Revenues increased from roughly $500 billion in 1980 to $1.1 trillion in 1990..

Wow, talk about very selective facts. How about mentioning that the economy collapsed due to Republican deregulation and tax cuts in the 1920s (it was called the 'Great Depression' and started under Hoover, and didn't get any better while their policies were in place, either, so if you are about to blame FDR, nice try, but the Pubs were in officer for years while the economy collapsed more and more), the Reagen tax rate of 28 per cent lasted exactly one year, and resulted, again, in massive deficits. Deregulation also caused the banking collapse of 1987.

You also aren't looking at how the typical guy did. Total economic expansion under Reagen was significant, but they median income declined, and declined in every year the Republicans have controlled the US since then. All that money went to the wealthiest people.

In 1960, the top one per cent of income earners earned less than eight per cent of the total income, while in 2008 they earned more than twenty-three per cent of the total income. Since Reagen took office, adjusted for inflation, the median income of Americans has declined by seven per cent. The only times it didn't decline was under Clinton, who you right wingers hate.

 

[Saquist]

If the last 200 years are any indication then, in the way of technology the 22nd century will be slow. Perhaps in by the time the 21 century comes to an end Fusion might be a reality of our powergrid with forays into space flight with experimental vehicles.

Computer technology is the only rapidly expanding area of advancement, in processors and memory.

Biological science seems just as slow as new sources of energy and efficiency in them.

Quantum Science is another area that is moving quite rapidly and we continue to put up satellites to learn more about the observable universe.


Ecconomy and politics are the biggest reasons why I don't think Tech advancement will no be considerable in the next 100 years. Even with good Economy politics is extremely critical of applying new tech even today.

We know what applications the bucky ball could have but why haven't they produced them?
Boze Condensates could be huge leaps in information storage...but none applied.

Currently we are not a advanced technology culture.
We are actually a socially driven culture and and technology only serves that purpose. Thus it's hard to predict how quickly we'll advance.
For instance if there is a moderate level war that effects a wide area there could be considerable advancement. However if the War is too large or the planet incurs considerable damage to it's production and ecology and economy then then advancement will take a step back.

When society is content it will stagnant in advancement such as we currently are. The last 200 years were an aberration in 6,000 years of history. Humans have understood math for quite awhile, they've discovered and understood many things and then sat on the knowledge for hundreds of years before a revolutionary group of people apply them with enough force to effect change. We could be in for another 2 or 3 hundred years of stagnation.

Every culture will believe they are at the cutting edge of technology but few of then will realise that the edge is dull and blunted by complacency.

 

[T'Girl]

Bill Clinton was the first President to balance the budget since 1969

Great, as a nation we should do that every year, after the election on tuesday maybe we'll have a Republican congress that will push forward on a balanced budget amendment, so that every year the government will follow President Clinton's great example.

We had this idea of civil responsibility then ... and we had a military draft.

How can you equate the two? A all volunteer military force is much more of a indication of a society with "civil responsibility."

estate taxes (which the nation now calls, "death taxes" because it wants to return to the days of inherited aristocracy).

Or possible the nation's citizens simple want to "redistribute their wealth" solely to people of their own choosing. Of course there is the opposite idea of a man earns money and has it taxed, then he die and the government taxes the same money a second time.

the far right, who believes that everyone smart is nasty

Actual the right believes that everyone who is smart is already on the right.

 

[KJbushway]

Bill Clinton was the first President to balance the budget since 1969

Great, as a nation we should do that every year, after the election on tuesday maybe we'll have a Republican congress that will push forward on a balanced budget amendment, so that every year the government will follow President Clinton's great example.

We had this idea of civil responsibility then ... and we had a military draft.

How can you equate the two? A all volunteer military force is much more of a indication of a society with "civil responsibility."

estate taxes (which the nation now calls, "death taxes" because it wants to return to the days of inherited aristocracy).

Or possible the nation's citizens simple want to "redistribute their wealth" solely to people of their own choosing. Of course there is the opposite idea of a man earns money and has it taxed, then he die and the government taxes the same money a second time.

the far right, who believes that everyone smart is nasty

Actual the right believes that everyone who is smart is already on the right.

Well
1. The republicans always say they will cut spending of course when asked give indirect answers. Bush was by far the worse economic president we have had, it was during those republican years that the most outsourcing was done by companies and those companies still got tax cuts. He may have grown the economy, but only becuase he gave everyone their tax cuts right away in one big check. Obama's stimulus 30% was tax cuts to the middle class, no one noticed becuase they got it in small incurments. Not only that but it was the right that got us into an illegal war that killed 4,000 of our troops and thousands of innocent foriegn citizens for his own benefit becuase his family owns oil. Its always been a long tradition, the republicans rule the nation for 2 terms the democrats get 1 to fix it.
2. Death benefits aren't taxed, estates are. Might want to look up information before you spit it out(another quality of a right side)
3. Never has it been a evenly distributed wealth between the poeple escpecially during a republican president or even a democratic.
4. you can't cut taxes becuase what does taxes pay for that is currently failing.
>education(No child left behind, actually left alot of children behind)
>infrastructure
5. you can't say the smart on the right hand side when:
>you have people like Sarah Palin, Chrisitine Mc'Donnell
> When over half don't believe in evolution
> When some believe that marriage is only for the straight, even though in the constitution it states unalienable right #3-pursuit of happiness
> When some believe that being gay is a mental disorder
> When most believe that stem cells actually come from frozen babies in the freezer
> When some say that separation of church and state isn't in the constitution, and that the majority of the founding fathers didn't believe in separation of church and state.
> Most believe that Obama's health care bill is actually a bad thing, on a broken system.
> Most believe that Obama's stimulus actually lost all those 8 millions jobs
> Need I go on, I have plenty more to point out.

I am if you want to put me some where, I am a liberal. Its a scary thought that there will still be republican control in the 22nd century, that means the U.S will still be screwed.

 

[Brannigan]

If today is any indication in the 22nd century the world will have made leaps and bound in technology, including A-grade health insurance, and science will trump religion as belief. Thus most of the world will be better off.
Meanwhile the US will continue to backslide under a conservative agenda that places religion ahead of science, and corporate interests ahead of people. In short in the 22nd century,while the rest of the world will be living wonderfully, the US will look like the middle/dark ages of the 15-17th centuries.

 

[Avon]

i just hope everyone wears skintight jumpsuits.

 

[sojourner]

^No, no you don't.

 

[RandyS]

^How about just the women?

I could live with that.

 

[Avon]

no everyone should wear them. i want to see some men in sexy clothing for a change.

 

[KJbushway]

If today is any indication in the 22nd century the world will have made leaps and bound in technology, including A-grade health insurance, and science will trump religion as belief. Thus most of the world will be better off.
Meanwhile the US will continue to backslide under a conservative agenda that places religion ahead of science, and corporate interests ahead of people. In short in the 22nd century,while the rest of the world will be living wonderfully, the US will look like the middle/dark ages of the 15-17th centuries.

I am happy in that case that I will be dead though if I lived outside the US, I would definitely love this century.
FREEZE ME, just don't place me next to Mr. Disney.

 

[Orcus]

SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!!!

 

[Finn]

If today is any indication in the 22nd century the world will have made leaps and bound in technology, including A-grade health insurance, and science will trump religion as belief. Thus most of the world will be better off.
Meanwhile the US will continue to backslide under a conservative agenda that places religion ahead of science, and corporate interests ahead of people. In short in the 22nd century,while the rest of the world will be living wonderfully, the US will look like the middle/dark ages of the 15-17th centuries.

Are you talking about the Renaissance? Actually, it would be nice if we had someone like Leonardo today.

 

[T'Girl]

... will look like the middle/dark ages of the 15-17th centuries.

Are you talking about the Renaissance? Actually, it would be nice if we had someone like Leonardo today.

I've thought or some time now that this time period from Earth's history would be a good example of what the pre- and early Federation would look like. Exploration (China and Europe), creation of new states and new empires (Ottoman, Malwa, Songhai, British, Spanish, Portuguese, Tamerlane) and interactions between them, creation of new trade routes and colonies.

A great time of medicine, philosophy, science, art and political thought.

The Renaissance? I would love America to "sink" to this.

 

[Brannigan]

To clarify. I didn't mean that we would go through history just the same. While we would be in a dark ages, at current there would be no Renaissance, as enlightened people would be seen as a threat.

 

[Finn]

^What?

 

[KJbushway]

Good Question.

 

[Lookingglassman]

I don't see the USA still being around as it is now.