America's Decline. A Self Inflicted Wound.

[DarkNoon]

If Biden didn't hold Israel back in Lebanon and Israel was actually aloud years ago to finish Hezbollah once and for all, Iran wouldn't even have half the cards it has now at negotiating table. Hope you libtards (blame magtards equally) holding Israel back was worth it. You played right into enemy social media propaganda morons. Accomplished only more death & harm in the long run. Biden only held Israel back in Lebanon because of his base.

I don't think Americans cared what party was in office in WWII, when the country faced a true threat the people backed the government to finish the war. That's not the case anymore. Both the left and right over many decades have failed this. Because Americans don't want to do what is right nor put in the effort. Then pussy out when the going gets tough. The decline in America IMHO can almost lay at the foot of every last American the last 30 or even 50 years trying to have their cake and eat it too.

Dems wants a liberal democracy without the arms. Gop want the arms without the liberal democracy. News flash both are wrong. You can't have a liberal/welfare democracy without arms and you can't have the arms without a welfare liberal democracy. Idiots. One cannot exist without the other.

Wake the hell up America. The liberal/welfare democracy funds the arms, the arms protect and keep us on top of the global money pile WHICH THEN funds our liberal democracy. It's a feedback loop that won us the cold war.... But then Americans thought they could have their cake and eat it too. Idiots. How to destroy a super power in 3 to 5 decades by domesticating behavior and dumbing the population for special interest that run BOTH parties. Shame on everyone, including me who was caught up in that bullshit years ago.

@RiffRaff did I leave anything out?

Anyways. Here ends my valid rant.

 

[Publius]

If Biden didn't hold Israel back in Lebanon and Israel was actually aloud years ago to finish Hezbollah once and for all, Iran wouldn't even have half the cards it has now at negotiating table. Hope you libtards (blame magtards equally) holding Israel back was worth it. You played right into enemy social media propaganda morons. Accomplished only more death & harm in the long run. Biden only held Israel back in Lebanon because of his base.

I don't think Americans cared what party was in office in WWII, when the country faced a true threat the people backed the government to finish the war. That's not the case anymore. Both the left and right over many decades have failed this. Because Americans don't want to do what is right nor put in the effort. Then pussy out when the going gets tough. The decline in America IMHO can almost lay at the foot of every last American the last 30 or even 50 years trying to have their cake and eat it too.

Dems wants a liberal democracy without the arms. Gop want the arms without the liberal democracy. News flash both are wrong. You can't have a liberal/welfare democracy without arms and you can't have the arms without a welfare liberal democracy. Idiots. One cannot exist without the other.

Wake the hell up America. The liberal/welfare democracy funds the arms, the arms protect and keep us on top of the global money pile WHICH THEN funds our liberal democracy. It's a feedback loop that won us the cold war.... But then Americans thought they could have their cake and eat it too. Idiots. How to destroy a super power in 3 to 5 decades by domesticating behavior and dumbing the population for special interest that run BOTH parties. Shame on everyone, including me who was caught up in that bullshit years ago.

@RiffRaff did I leave anything out?

Anyways. Here ends my valid rant.

Something to think about. Iran is at 70% inflation with an economy that has shrunk 7% this year

Legitimate question you can’t ignore. What happens to the region if Iran descends into civil war. Syria was bad, Iran would likely be exponentially worse.
We successfully choked off most of they’re income production with the oil embargo.


Yes I would like to see the IRGC gone. But there is the old mantra of the devil you know…..
Remember outside of Israel I believe there are no successful liberal democracies in the Middle East. So if the Iranian government where to collapse completely what would that situation look like and what impact would it have on the entire region.

Now this is all just theory and untested. I’m just trying to see if there are logical reasons for enacting a ceasefire memorandum at this stage.

The number one complaint or fear at the beginning of this was we we’re going to get bogged down in another forever war. Just as many here said about Venezuela.
What it the outcome of the war was never a given for regimen change.

What is one of the things so many have said about the Iraq and Afghanistan war, nation building was a bridge to far.
So what if the outcome aimed for was one more along the lines of what’s been accomplished in Venezuela?.

I acknowledge that it will be very hard to trust the IRGC to do what they say they will do. And the rhetoric out of Iran will continue to be bellicose if for no other reasons differing factions.

To discount all of this of this completely is ignoring the real possibility of moderate factions in the Iranian gov who could be capitalizing on the weakened ayatollahs and IRGC.

This, at least at this point is a totally unverified proposition of what’s going on. It is though a reasoned possibility of what’s going on behind the scenes.
We shall see

 

[GBS61]

did I leave anything out?

The real problem for the USA and the entire West:

Money and globalization
During World War II, the USA was the world's factory.
Today, China has overtaken the USA; now, China and Asia are the world's factories. The West no longer produces anything; it assembles the final product.

Example:
Apple's iPhone (or most modern smartphones) is an excellent example of a finished product assembled in the United States, but composed of raw materials and parts from several countries. Although the majority of iPhones are assembled in Asia, Apple has relocated the assembly of some high-end models and computers (like the Mac Pro) to the United States (particularly Texas).

Origin of components and raw materials: The origin of this product is global:

United States: Software design, electronic chips (sometimes manufactured in Arizona), and screen glass (Corning).
Democratic Republic of Congo: Cobalt for the battery.

China: Lithium for the battery and rare earth elements for the magnets. Taiwan: TSMC manufactures the main processors.

South Korea: OLED screens (Samsung or LG) and flash memory.

Japan: Image sensors (Sony). Final Process

All these raw materials are transformed into components in their respective countries. The parts are shipped to the American factory. The factory performs final assembly, quality testing, and packaging.

Multiply all of this by millions of companies.

So, most American multinationals have been transferring their production to various countries for at least 40 years, which makes the owners of all these companies even richer, but not you, the people.

 

[DarkNoon]

The real problem for the USA and the entire West:

You must not have read my post.

My point was that the liberal/welfare democracy America used to be helped fund the arms, and those arms helped preserve the conditions that allowed the liberal/welfare democracy to survive like opening and keeping open global markets.

America used to tax the winners to fund the military power that protected those same winners by keeping global markets open, free, and largely secure for American business. That was the self reinforcing feedback loop that helped win the Cold War.

The domestic welfare state and the military machine were not opposites. They fed each other.

So maybe reread what I said above. I’m not saying you’re entirely wrong, but you definitely do not have the full picture.

Both the Democrats (liberal democracy without strong military global presence) & Republicans (lessen the welfare state and grow the military) are wrong. The answer isn't one or the other, it's both! It's already proven to have worked. But then Americans wanted to eat their cake and have it too, both sides!

 

[DarkNoon]

Simply put... The old American system taxed the winners, used that money to fund both domestic legitimacy and military supremacy, and then used military supremacy to protect the global market conditions that allowed the winners to keep winning. Key word. Used to. Now we are here, staring at the bottom of a barrel we made ourselves.

 

[GBS61]

You must not have read my post.

My point was that the liberal/welfare democracy America used to be helped fund the arms, and those arms helped preserve the conditions that allowed the liberal/welfare democracy to survive like opening and keeping open global markets.

America used to tax the winners to fund the military power that protected those same winners by keeping global markets open, free, and largely secure for American business. That was the self reinforcing feedback loop that helped win the Cold War.

The domestic welfare state and the military machine were not opposites. They fed each other.

So maybe reread what I said above. I’m not saying you’re entirely wrong, but you definitely do not have the full picture.

Both the Democrats (liberal democracy without strong military global presence) & Republicans (lessen the welfare state and grow the military) are wrong. The answer isn't one or the other, it's both! It's already proven to have worked. But then Americans wanted to eat their cake and have it too, both sides!

I read your message and wanted to add something. I know I'm going off-topic, but it proves that the West is experiencing several problems; it's quite a broad issue. Getting an overview is rather difficult, as many problems are intertwined.

 

[teekay99]

Simply put... The old American system taxed the winners, used that money to fund both domestic legitimacy and military supremacy, and then used military supremacy to protect the global market conditions that allowed the winners to keep winning. Key word. Used to. Now we are here, staring at the bottom of a barrel we made ourselves.

We're wandering off topic; however, I believe this analysis to be a bit of a non-sequitur. The question of who gets taxed is independent of the question how is the revenue used. I am not sure I see the connection between US fiscal policy and US defense spending in this or the previous post. I am not saying there is no connection. I am just not sure that connection has been described in the post, and I am not sure that such a connection has anything to do with this new Iran deal.

Note the following:

• The US collected $5.23 trillion from taxpayers in 2025, whoever they may be, rich, poor, winners, losers. (source: https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/government-revenue/). That seems like plenty of money to fund a modern and professional military with plenty left over to fund government programs, especially when you consider the defense budget for 2025 was nearly $850 billion (source: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IN12425).
• However, there is that pesky thing called interest. According to the US Government Accountability Office, the 2025 debt interest payment equaled $1.2 trillion (source: U.S. GAO - Financial Audit: Bureau of the Fiscal Service’s FY 2025 and FY 2024 Schedules of Federal Debt.).
  • So interest payments consume nearly 20% of federal revenue.
  • And mind you, that is interest-only, meaning that is is the amount we pay to KEEP the debt. No extra goes towards paying down the principal. And of course continued deficit spending only increases the debt year over year.
  • So next year, the interest payment will be even greater. Yay. Until some principal is paid down and deficit spending stops, interest payments will only grow.

We will certainly have a fiscal crisis when the interest payments grow large enough to eat into that $850 billion guns budget or when it eats into the remaining budget used for butter. If you want to worry about fiscal policy adversely impacting military capability and projection of force, focus your energy on increasing national debt.

Additionally, the term "winners" is not defined. Does "winners" mean wealthy people? Does "winners" mean politicians? Does "winners" mean those who won the Powerball lottery? Does "winners" mean the 2025 Los Angeles Dodgers?

Either way, I am not sure what is being argued with respect to the Iran conflict. Is it any of these?

• The US government will protect US interests more fiercely when the rich are taxed at a higher rate.
• The US government would have conquered the IRGC if rich people paid more taxes.
• The administration would have acted more decisively if rich people contributed in greater proportions to federal fiscal revenue?

For FY 2023, the wealthiest 5% of income earners paid nearly 60% of personal income tax collected. In FY 1980 (which would be a budget administered by the Carter administration), the wealthiest 5% of income earners paid nearly 37% of personal income tax collected (source: Who Pays Income Taxes: Tax Year 2023). So assuming "winners" means "wealthy", in 2023 (and beyond), more "winners" were shouldering a greater burden of fiscal revenues (taxes) than in 1980. And in 2026 we did actually engage in military action against Iran in an attempt to protect American interests under this modern tax regime where wealthy people pay the greater share of taxes, versus what we did 1980 (nearly nothing).

But I am going to propose that the perceived "failure" or "weakness" of the US in Iran in 2026 had less to do with who pays taxes and more to do with political realities of how people will vote in 2026 which could directly effect who gets to retain control of government in 2027 and 2028. This Iran agreement is less about making the middle east safe again (MMESA) and more about certain individuals and parties retaining political power domestically.

 

[DEFCON Warning System]

and you can't have the arms without a welfare liberal democracy.

Sure you can. Russia. North Korea. Iran. China.

Just to name a few.

 

[DarkNoon]

Sure you can. Russia. North Korea. Iran. China.

Just to name a few.

Nope. None of those countries you listed even come close to democracy arms. Only reason why US or even just half of the other Western countries has gotten to its point is because it was a welfare liberal democracy that taxed the winners to build the arms on such scale which said arms protected winners/businesses trade on global theater to expand their winnings. A scale even the Soviet Union couldn't match. So what was your point again? Because my point very clearly still stands.

It's a feedback loop American citizens personally destroyed with their cult mentality regarding their party beliefs. The very system that won us the Cold War.

 

[DarkNoon]

I am not sure I see the connection between US fiscal policy and US defense spending in this or the previous post. I am not saying there is no connection. I am just not sure that connection has been described in the post, and I am not sure that such a connection has anything to do with this new Iran deal.

Simply put my only point is this Iran threat, a true threat we have not seen since the Nazi's, wasn't able to be handled or was not able to be taken care of the proper way because we have essentially canabolized our military superiority which I explained how and why above over the last many decades because/over Americans wanted to have their cake and eat it too.

realities of how people will vote in 2026 which could directly effect who gets to retain control of government in 2027 and 2028.

Your whole post IF you do not somehow realize only re-enforces my point. So your point is exactly what I was trying to say. Doesn't matter what party was in control over government durring WWIII. The people supported whoever to ensure the threat was taken care of. Today. That is not the case. Only point I am making AND THANK YOU FOR MAKING MY POINT FOR ME.

 

[DarkNoon]

America once had enough civic unity, institutional confidence, and strategic seriousness to sustain hard action against major threats. Now voters and parties punish hard choices, so leaders choose short term political survival over strategic closure, it's been like this for to many decades. Shame on all our houses. IMO no one has right to complain about America's decline because everyone mentally ON EITHER SIDE is responsible for the decline and this failure too over Iran by expecting our leaders to have our cake and eat it too. Nonsense. Only us to blame.

 

[DarkNoon]

Nope. None of those countries you listed even come close to democracy arms.

Here is a more clarified statement: U.S. scale liberal hegemonic military power = democracy arms.

US military superiority durring Cold War was ONLY built by taxing the winners in America. We didn't just "magically print" or make the strongest military in the world by waving a wand. It came from the wealthy/winners who made their wealth from American global market dominance, enforced, and built by their very tax dollars.

But that has changed over the last 40 years and now everyone wonders why we are in such bad shape & in debt. JEEZE I WONDER WHY.....

Trying to run a empire without the empire tax. Trying to be a empire/have empire benefits without the empire force to secure the funds/benefits. Wake up America, both sides "line of thinking" are terminal cancer. Have been for decades.

Though IMO it's to late to fix anything... American people to far gone sadly. AND very evidently. Not to many people seem to self aware of the wounds we/they are inflicting on one another & to Country.

People in America have almost entirely played into private interests and/or foreign propaganda that only sever a self defeating notion. BOTH parties have been consumed by this toxin/cancer.

 

[DEFCON Warning System]

None of those countries you listed even come close to democracy arms.

That wasn't your claim. You said "you can't have the arms without a welfare liberal democracy". That is incorrect. Plenty of countries have arms without being a Welfare Liberal Democracy.

Maybe I misunderstood your position?

 

[DarkNoon]

Maybe I misunderstood your position?

You certainly did and you know exactly what you did Mr. Devils advocate. Maybe you thought you where helping? Thanks for trying to take my very valid points away instead of trying to debate the position instead of superficial technicalities that are pretty self evident.

In my 5 posts and 20 paragraph was I not clear enough? I am pretty sure I was.

Sorry not mad at you. Just. With everything regarding Iran and the decline of my country... responsible by BOTH sides, that are ran & funded by the same fuckers/special interests groups.

I'm particularly & mostly mad at myself for fueling exactly this in the past...........

Anyways I'll shut the hell up for tonight. Clearly I'm still in no sane enough position to speak my mind without burning the whole house down.

 

[GBS61]

I asked this question to the artificial intelligence.

: What exactly is the problem with the United States?

The current problem in the United States doesn't stem from a single cause, but from a combination of deeply interconnected political, economic, and social crises.

Political and Institutional Polarization
Bipartisanship: The divide between Democrats and Republicans paralyzes Congress. Democratic Erosion: Distrust of institutions and electoral processes is growing. Culture Wars: Debates over abortion, immigration, and identity are dividing society.

Economic and Social Divides: Wealth Inequality: The gap between the very rich and the middle class is constantly widening. Cost of Living: Housing, higher education, and healthcare have become unaffordable for many. Opioid Crisis: Fentanyl addiction is causing major health and human devastation. Gun Violence: Mass shootings remain an unresolved systemic problem.

International Challenges: Public Debt: National debt is reaching record highs, threatening economic stability. Global Rivalries: Tensions with China and Russia are challenging American hegemony.

 

[Publius]

We're wandering off topic; however, I believe this analysis to be a bit of a non-sequitur. The question of who gets taxed is independent of the question how is the revenue used. I am not sure I see the connection between US fiscal policy and US defense spending in this or the previous post. I am not saying there is no connection. I am just not sure that connection has been described in the post, and I am not sure that such a connection has anything to do with this new Iran deal.

Note the following:

• The US collected $5.23 trillion from taxpayers in 2025, whoever they may be, rich, poor, winners, losers. (source: https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/government-revenue/). That seems like plenty of money to fund a modern and professional military with plenty left over to fund government programs, especially when you consider the defense budget for 2025 was nearly $850 billion (source: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IN12425).
• However, there is that pesky thing called interest. According to the US Government Accountability Office, the 2025 debt interest payment equaled $1.2 trillion (source: U.S. GAO - Financial Audit: Bureau of the Fiscal Service’s FY 2025 and FY 2024 Schedules of Federal Debt.).
  • So interest payments consume nearly 20% of federal revenue.
  • And mind you, that is interest-only, meaning that is is the amount we pay to KEEP the debt. No extra goes towards paying down the principal. And of course continued deficit spending only increases the debt year over year.
  • So next year, the interest payment will be even greater. Yay. Until some principal is paid down and deficit spending stops, interest payments will only grow.

We will certainly have a fiscal crisis when the interest payments grow large enough to eat into that $850 billion guns budget or when it eats into the remaining budget used for butter. If you want to worry about fiscal policy adversely impacting military capability and projection of force, focus your energy on increasing national debt.

Additionally, the term "winners" is not defined. Does "winners" mean wealthy people? Does "winners" mean politicians? Does "winners" mean those who won the Powerball lottery? Does "winners" mean the 2025 Los Angeles Dodgers?

Either way, I am not sure what is being argued with respect to the Iran conflict. Is it any of these?

• The US government will protect US interests more fiercely when the rich are taxed at a higher rate.
• The US government would have conquered the IRGC if rich people paid more taxes.
• The administration would have acted more decisively if rich people contributed in greater proportions to federal fiscal revenue?

For FY 2023, the wealthiest 5% of income earners paid nearly 60% of personal income tax collected. In FY 1980 (which would be a budget administered by the Carter administration), the wealthiest 5% of income earners paid nearly 37% of personal income tax collected (source: Who Pays Income Taxes: Tax Year 2023). So assuming "winners" means "wealthy", in 2023 (and beyond), more "winners" were shouldering a greater burden of fiscal revenues (taxes) than in 1980. And in 2026 we did actually engage in military action against Iran in an attempt to protect American interests under this modern tax regime where wealthy people pay the greater share of taxes, versus what we did 1980 (nearly nothing).

But I am going to propose that the perceived "failure" or "weakness" of the US in Iran in 2026 had less to do with who pays taxes and more to do with political realities of how people will vote in 2026 which could directly effect who gets to retain control of government in 2027 and 2028. This Iran agreement is less about making the middle east safe again (MMESA) and more about certain individuals and parties retaining political power domestically.

or reclaiming it.


You’re mad or upset because it’s not all packaged up in a birthday box with a ribbon?
Politics and foreign policy is never neat.

 

[Publius]

Nope. None of those countries you listed even come close to democracy arms. Only reason why US or even just half of the other Western countries has gotten to its point is because it was a welfare liberal democracy that taxed the winners to build the arms on such scale which said arms protected winners/businesses trade on global theater to expand their winnings. A scale even the Soviet Union couldn't match. So what was your point again? Because my point very clearly still stands.

It's a feedback loop American citizens personally destroyed with their cult mentality regarding their party beliefs. The very system that won us the Cold War.

In 1961 50% of the federal budget went to defense discretionary spending. Today it’s 13%
Today 60% goes to non-discretionary social and welfare spending

Different expectations from our government. So expect different priorities and results.

What is going on with the negotiations with Iran are not settled yet.
I have pointed to the dramatic shifts in Venezuela, Panama, and Latin america in general. This week we saw announcements from the Cuban gov they were going to have to open their markets and foreign ties due to the new realities in western hemisphere.

Also remember the Cold War was not won with a battle or overt toppling of any gov. Vietnam was not a military victory.
It was an economic defeat.

As far as a liberal welfare democracy?
In 1960 we were NOT a “welfare/ democracy” Social programs including SS only compromised 20% of the federal budget.
So again the priorities have shifted to the very thing Franklin reportedly warned about. We have a republic not a democracy, in a democracy the people can vote themselves the largess of gov taxation and spending.
Which is exactly what we have done.

 

[DarkNoon]

In 1961 50% of the federal budget went to defense discretionary spending. Today it’s 13%
Today 60% goes to non-discretionary social and welfare spending

Different expectations from our government. So expect different priorities and results.

What is going on with the negotiations with Iran are not settled yet.
I have pointed to the dramatic shifts in Venezuela, Panama, and Latin america in general. This week we saw announcements from the Cuban gov they were going to have to open their markets and foreign ties due to the new realities in western hemisphere.

Also remember the Cold War was not won with a battle or overt toppling of any gov. Vietnam was not a military victory.
It was an economic defeat.

As far as a liberal welfare democracy?
In 1960 we were NOT a “welfare/ democracy” Social programs including SS only compromised 20% of the federal budget.
So again the priorities have shifted to the very thing Franklin reportedly warned about. We have a republic not a democracy, in a democracy the people can vote themselves the largess of gov taxation and spending.
Which is exactly what we have done.

Nope. We where in fact a liberal welfare democracy.

Also please tell me or show me where I said social policies? That's not what I mean in any way when I say a liberal welfare democracy. Pretty sure you know that and like director trying to take away very valid points by dragging it into technicalities.

Don't worry I'll center the conversation back on track and won't let anyone take it away from center point.

FACT: Corporations where taxed more then half their income and the individual wealthy where taxed up to 90% of their income as well. So convenient Republicans & even Democrats in Congress like to leave that little note out and pretend America was built by magic... And yet another fact, they still had money to grow their businesses and their own private wealth.

That tax welfare system essentially went into building infrastructure at home and building/maintaining the military & our global presence.

Again where do you see social policies in my argument again? Because there isn't.

DEMs wanted to keep the welfare democracy and rid the arms/global presence, WRONG. Then the GOP want to rid the welfare democracy and build the arms, WRONG. The answer is BOTH. Like it was before.

So please. Would you like to try again and actually discuss my very valid points?

 

[DarkNoon]

Not arguing over social policies like SSI or Health Care, a subject I never once mentioned. So take it to a different thread.

America once had a high capacity national security state where it taxed winners, built infrastructure, funded military superiority, protected global markets, and used that global dominance to keep the domestic system prosperous. BOTH parties later tried to keep only the half they liked.

That broke the feedback loop that won us the Cold War. That's why we are where we are.

The fact both sides of the political spectrum here are trying to pick this apart should say everything to people paying attention. If both parties becoming defensive then clearly I am onto to something.

Wake up America. Both parties have been a cancer to this nation for sometime now and is becoming terminal.

 

[william]

America isn't so bad. IMO And others around the world.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2068074134043562119