great.. so everyday that woman gets to be reminded some sick SOB raped her and that the sacrifices she has to make on a daily basis are for a child she didn't want...
but at least she gets a few dollars in child support from the man she doesn't want anything to do with.
I'm going to say yes (to your question about us profiting from the scarce resources)...
It is not possible for everyone to prosper.. here's an example.. lets say everyone was equal economically, and had equal access to oil:
Current production of oil is 79 million barrels a day. Each barrel (which is 42 gallons) produces about 20 gallons of gasoline.
So: 79 million barrels = 1,580,000,000 gallons of gasoline. There are 6.5 billion people which means each person will receive 0.24 gallons per day.
That can only result in a shortage of gasoline (not just for running our cars, but also for plastics and the many other products that are produced from oil).
The same will happen for virtually every other resource the world has. There simply is not enough to go around. For many of those resources, production can not be increased, as there is a limited supply available.
Unless some kind of revolutionary change happens, globalization can only result in everyone being equally poor without access to even basic resources.
I have to agree with the grandparent. It is not our responsibility to make sure the people in India or China prosper. That is their responsibility.
Our first responsibility is the people of our own country. Whether it is economic success, security, liberty, etc. Whatever it is, we must first work to make sure our own country has secured it before helping other to do the same. And we must never sacrifice what we have secured in our pursuit to help another country.
While I have few objections to fair trade.. I have many objections to unbridled free trade.
If we were to allow unrestricted free trade, America would lose its wealth. Don't tell me that it would result in everyone being as rich as Americans, or even Europeans.. it just isn't possible.
Some simple math: The World's GDP is 50 trillion dollars. There are 6.5 billion people. 50 trillion / 6.5 billion = $7700.00 per person -- ie: less than minimum wage
While the idea that free trade will equalize everyone is nice... It can only result in everyone being equally poor (by American or European or any first world standards).
It has long been believed that Titanian lakes or even seas of methane might exist on the surface. However, while many of the surface features could be explained as the products of flowing liquids, no conclusive evidence has yet been found for the presence of liquids on Titan's surface at the present time.
When the Cassini probe arrived in the Saturnian system, it was hoped that hydrocarbon lakes or oceans might be detectable by reflected sunlight from the surface of any liquid bodies, but no specular reflections were observed.
The findings of the January 14, 2005 landing on Titan by the Huygens probe do not show any open areas of liquid...
I read it in a recent issue of the NY times... I remember it distinctly because I was surprised by the number.. I thought it was _A LOT_ lower. Can't find the article though...
I don't know about Europe, but in the U.S., aprox 85% of the goods consumed here are produced right here in the U.S. That percentage is down quite a bit (it used to be in the lower 90%s in 1992), but we still produce the vast majority of our own goods..
Our trade deficit with China is 200 billion dollars.. the U.S. economy is worth 12.37 trillion dollars..
While I won't pretend that China falling wouldn't effect the U.S. for the worst, it certainly wouldn't result in the fall of the U.S. We DO depend on China... but they are more dependent on the U.S. than the U.S. is dependent on China.
Our moderate dependence on China is relatively recent.. while their economy is almost entirely the result of international demand (resulting in the trade imbalances they run with their trading partners), the U.S. economy is the result of domestic demand.. As long as that domestic demand is present, the U.S. economy can and will survive without China.. just as we did 10-15 years ago before China became a major trading partner.
I completely agree with you. Communism on a large scale would only work in a fantasy land. It ignores basic human nature.
There are many problems with Communism.. but lets take a look at one (possibly the largest) problem:
"The people" as a whole, own the property. But the government controls the people.. so in reality, the government controls the property. And if the government controls the property, what we are really saying is a handful of people (our representatives, if you will) control the property.
That small group of people is a few hundred (at best).
In capitalism.. even if the wealth is distributed extremely unfairly.. there are still more people in control of that wealth than in communism. Lets say 1% of the people in a capitalist country control 99% of the wealth.. well in the U.S. that 1% would be 3 million people; Russia: 1.5-2 million; China: 12 million people.
So instead of millions of people in control of 99% of the wealth, in communism we have a couple hundred people in control of 100% of the wealth.
In other words, communism results in power and wealth being _MORE_ consolidated than in capitalism.
And with the power consolidated in the hands of a handful of people, we get the abuses we see when it is implemented. Those handful of people will abuse their position in order to keep their position of power. They will abuse their position for their own gain, and 'The people' will be the losers in the system.
Yes, I know this is the opposite of what Marx imagined.. but that is the result in reality.
Karl Marx wrote, ". . . the human essence is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of social relations." Marx's idea was that a change in the "ensemble of social relations" can change "the human essence."
He really did think human nature could be changed.. And if that is what you believe, why not ignore the aspects of human nature that you don't like? They can always be changed.
And with regards to the government control of wealth, don't reply with: "why would there be a government at all"... Because people naturally form hierarchies.. so there will always be someone who will be in control over The People.
So in summary: The abuses we see/saw in the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba, and China are exactly what Communism is in reality.
when you are reading ad rates, CPM stands for "Cost Per Milli" or in other words "Cost per thousand" impressions. So when you see $100/CPM (which is actually a bit high -- even slashdot only costs aprox $40/CPM), you're talking about $100,000 for 1 million impressions.
Again, like in your OP, you're insinuating that the Chinese are irreponsible with their pop growth - which is why I mentioned their policy of birth constraint last time. Consider that the US is only ~200 years old, and has a phenomenally large population for its age.
The Chinese are responsible for their population growth. That many people didn't just appear out of nowhere.
Their policy of birth constraint is fairly new.
See my other post: It is NOT the result of 2000 years of gradual population growth. It is the result of the past 50 years of massive population growth that has more than doubled the Chinese population.
I think the point we're clashing on is that you don't realize your original post insinuated that the Chinese are multiplying like horny rabbits,
Maybe they aren't 'multiplying like horny rabbits now', but they have in the past. Take a look at this chart:
As one can see from this chart, for most of the past 2000 years China's population fluctuated between some 60 and 110 million. A significant increase in population only occurred during the Qing dynasty, when China's population reached the 400 million level. However, there is no historical precedence to China's modern population growth since the 1950, which doubled a 550 million population in less then 40 years.
So, starting in 1950, they doubled their population over 40 years. If they had the 550 million they had 50 years ago, the pollution in China wouldn't be as large of a problem as it is today.
Their massive population growth is a problem they created -- the pollution created by that population growth is part of that problem.
look at Seagate.. only manufacturer (that I know of) that has a 5 year warranty.. I have 8 of them, no problems yet. Too bad their latest drives are made in China:(
Personally, I don't really see a difference between Cuba and China. Officially, we have problems with both countries. Their economic relationships with the U.S. represent two different strategies (as stated by our representatives) aimed at encouraging democracy:
With Cuba, our strategy was defined decades ago with the embargo. The emargo was enacted after Fidel declared its alliance with the USSR, and was a result of our Coldwar strategy. The embargo continues partly due to the feelings Americans have toward Cuba, and the 1.2 million Cuban immigrants that live in the U.S. (1.2 million immigrants == a lot of sway with politicians, a lot of people to tell stories about why they left, etc). We have been reluctant to change our strategy with Cuba, due mostly to fears that we would be giving into Fidel's requests.. essentially legitimizing his regime.
Our strategy with China is a lot more recent. It's based on the belief that as China opens its markets (which is pretty much required to sustain their economic growth), the people become richer, the country becomes more developed, etc, that the people of China will demand their rights. We haven't seen this effect yet. Personally, I'm not convinced it actually exists, but that is what our representatives are saying.
Our strategy with China may not last much longer. With the flood of Chinese goods entering America (and a massive trade imbalance), partly due to China's currency policies, and several anti-US war-like statements from Chinese Generals, there was talk/legislation written about an across-the-board tariff on Chinese goods.
That was supported by many. However, it was shelved after China allowed their currency to float against a basket of currencies, and within a narrow band that China defined.
That was deemed good enough at the time. However, support is once again growing for those tariffs, and if China does not make further policy changes, we will likely see those tariffs sometime next year.
There is also talk about the Coldwar repeating, but this time with China. China is estimated to have at least the 3rd (behind Russia), possibly the 2nd, largest military budget in the World. They already have the largest # of troops in the world, and have been acquiring quite a bit of military hardware (tanks, subs, etc). A couple of Chinese Generals have made statements about what-ifs in a war against America; one General made a statement saying China would have no problem using nukes against the U.S. should we ever try to intervene in a war between China and Taiwan.
Although a Coldwar between China and the U.S. certainly seems like a possibility, we may not see one for several decades. But when it does come, you can be sure to see an embargo against China, and any nation that allies themselves with China.
Hope this shed a little light on U.S. policy, and why we treat China and Cuba differently.
I don't even know why I'm arguing with an anonymous coward.. someone at the start of the thread asked what the U.S. had against Cuba.. I (as an American) answered. You (who isn't an American.. as the embargo also includes a travel ban..) chimed in to tell me what was wrong with my view of Cuba...
But that wasn't even the point... That is how America views Cuba.. and you can't expect us to lift an embargo (that would essentially legitimize Castro) that has been in place for decades.
That is the *American* viewpoint, and that is why the majority of Americans still support the embargo.
great.. so your version of freedom is forcing every nation on earth to trade with eachother.. even if the people in one of those countries don't wish to.. sounds like freedom to me. (NOT!)
the FACT is that 10% of the Cuban population lives in the U.S. If things are OK in Cuba, why are they fleeing from Cuba. Everytime Fidel has opened the gates, and has said he will not punish them for leaving, (tens, even hundreds of) thousands flee from Cuba. This is why it is punishable by death to attempt to leave Cuba. Over 200,000 people (1959-1962) fled from Cuba before the embargo was put in place.
This directly contradicts what you are saying.. if the people of Cuba were ok.. if everything was ok in Cuba (except the embargo), the people of Cuba would not be so desperate to leave.
Can you imagine if 10% of America fled to Europe (that would be 30 million people)? The world would (rightly) wonder what the hell is wrong with America. But here we are in the same situation (but with Cuba and U.S.), and you want us to believe everything is A.OK.
Yes, yes.. I know... Everything I said was just American propaganda.. everything is great in Cuba.. everyone is happy.. Ten percent of the Cuban population has NOT fled to America.. Everything is great in Cuba!
Well, I might think, "Gee, maybe they'd be a little less desperate if the most powerful state on the planet hadn't been conducting an economic vendetta against them for the last half-century". But that's just me.
I think you are confused about the history of the relationship between Cuba and the U.S.
Fidel Castro came to power in 1959. The embargo wasn't enacted until 1962 after Cuba declared its alliance with the Soviet Union. Before the embargo, between 1959 and 1962, more than 200,000 people had fled Cuba for the United States.
The Cuban refugees were fleeing Cuba before the U.S. embargo, and they continue to do so. Not because of the U.S., but because of Fidel Castro.
Uh huh. Your Wikipedia reference is somewhat selective - you ignore the paragraphs immediately following the section you quoted, which cast that section in a rather different light. The talk page for that article also disinclines the reader to take either side too seriously.
Fine.. Never did really like Wikipedia.. here are some links to Amnesty International:
But that's beside the point. I'm well aware that the Castro regime has a brutal side. But it's a Care Bear convention compared to many regimes enthusiastically supported by the US - I'm thinking especially of Pinochet in Chile and of the Nicaraguan Contras, who routinely raped their democratic opponents, flayed them alive and left them to bleed to death hanging from trees by the roadside.
Those incidents in Nicaragua and Chile were not supported by the American public.. those were operations carried out in secret (by the CIA).
The abuses in Cuba are hardly unknown by Americans.. plenty of attention has been given to the subject. And while I'll agree we support some pretty despicable regimes, there are very few countries that have had more immigrants land on our shores asking for amnesty.
Over 1 millions people have fled from Cuba and are now living in the U.S. (mostly Florida).
So.. here's a rhetorical (and hypothetical) question for you:
If you lived in France, and every year people from Tunisia would risk death on rafts that barely float, starving, and damn near dead to arrive at your shores asking for amnesty..
What would you think about Tunisia? Because those feelings are how America feels about Cuba.
You could have found the reason within 5 minutes w/ google.
Human Rights in Cuba Dr. Armando Lago, of the Association for the Study of the Cuban Economy, cites the following numbers in "The Human Cost of Social Revolution":
* 15,000 to 18,000 executed for counterrevolutionary activities
* 1,000 extrajudicial assassinations
* 250 disappeared
* 500 died in prison for lack of medical attention
* 500 murdered in prison by guards
* 150 extrajudicial assassinations of women
...
In 1989, General Arnaldo Ochoa, once proclaimed "Hero of the Revolution" by Fidel Castro, along with three other high-ranking officers, was brought to trial for drug trafficking. This offense carries a maximum sentence of 20 years, but Ochoa and the others were convicted of treason, and promptly executed, largely on the basis of secret evidence.
...
In March 2003, the government of Cuba arrested dozens of journalists, librarians, and human rights activists, and charged them with sedition due to their alleged contacts with James Cason, head of the U.S. interest section in Havana. The accused were tried and sentenced to prison terms ranging from 15 to 28 years. In all, 75 journalists, librarians, and dissidents were given lengthy sentences averaging 17 years each. Among those sentenced were poet and journalist Raul Rivero, economist Martha Beatriz Roque, and Christian activist Oscar Elías Biscet. Amnesty International described the closed-door trials as "hasty and manifestly unfair."
...
According to Human Rights Watch, the Cuban government has broad authority to restrict freedom of speech, association, assembly, press, and movement.
Cuba's constitution of 1976 makes human rights subservient to the state's political aims. Article 62 states:
None of the freedoms which are recognized for citizens can be exercised contrary to what is established in the Constitution and by law, or contrary to the existence and objectives of the socialist state, or contrary to the decision of the Cuban people to build socialism and communism. Violations of this principle can be punished by law.
Another clause in the 1976 Cuban constitition states that anyone suspected of being prone to commit a crime in the future, as a preventive measure, can be sent to jail indefinitely.
...
13 de Marzo Incident: On July 13, 1994, 72 Cuban attempted to leave the island of Cuba on a World War II era tugboat named the "13 de Marzo". In an attempt by the Cuban Navy to stop the tugboat, patrol boats were sent out to interdict the tug. Crewmen and survivors reported that the interdiction vessels rammed the tugboat and sprayed its passengers with high pressure fire hoses, sweeping many overboard. A total of 41 men, women and children drowned after being swept off the tugs deck, 11 of these were children under the age of 12.
And that is just a few of the examples I found within 5 minutes... the abuses just go on and on and on...
you are talking about a billionaire. If I have a billion in the bank, and have 0 income, then I pay zero tax under the current system.
There are very few billionaires who don't use their money for something.. at the very least they are collecting interest on their money, and they have some of it invested in other companies, etc.
Right now.. the billionaire would pay income tax in their investments. Under FairTax, they would pay nothing on the millions (sometimes billions) they make from their investments.
they will pay more dollars than poor or middle-class people.
That is always going to be the case (for any reasonable tax system).
While rich folks may pay a smaller percentage of their income as taxes,
The question is really whether they are going to be paying less of their income in taxes than they currently do. FairTax would certainly result in the rich paying fewer dollars than they currently do.
The government still has the same budget.. still wants/is going to spend the same amount as before FairTax...
So who is going to make up for the fewer dollars being collected from the rich?
The working class
The disparity between the rich and poor is already widening. With FairTax -- where the rich pay fewer dollars to taxes than they do currently -- that widening disparity will accelerate.
So the net result with FairTax is that the tax burden is shifted from the rich to lower income earning individuals (ie: the working class).
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.ustreas.gov/tic/mfh.txt
China owns 12% of the foreign owned debt
They own approximately the same amount as the U.K.
Which is about 1/3 of the amount owned by Japan.
Japan owns 30% of the foreign owned debt.
but at least she gets a few dollars in child support from the man she doesn't want anything to do with.
It is not possible for everyone to prosper.. here's an example.. lets say everyone was equal economically, and had equal access to oil:
Current production of oil is 79 million barrels a day. Each barrel (which is 42 gallons) produces about 20 gallons of gasoline.
So: 79 million barrels = 1,580,000,000 gallons of gasoline. There are 6.5 billion people which means each person will receive 0.24 gallons per day.
That can only result in a shortage of gasoline (not just for running our cars, but also for plastics and the many other products that are produced from oil).
The same will happen for virtually every other resource the world has. There simply is not enough to go around. For many of those resources, production can not be increased, as there is a limited supply available.
Unless some kind of revolutionary change happens, globalization can only result in everyone being equally poor without access to even basic resources.
Our first responsibility is the people of our own country. Whether it is economic success, security, liberty, etc. Whatever it is, we must first work to make sure our own country has secured it before helping other to do the same. And we must never sacrifice what we have secured in our pursuit to help another country.
While I have few objections to fair trade.. I have many objections to unbridled free trade.
If we were to allow unrestricted free trade, America would lose its wealth. Don't tell me that it would result in everyone being as rich as Americans, or even Europeans.. it just isn't possible.
Some simple math: The World's GDP is 50 trillion dollars. There are 6.5 billion people. 50 trillion / 6.5 billion = $7700.00 per person -- ie: less than minimum wage
While the idea that free trade will equalize everyone is nice... It can only result in everyone being equally poor (by American or European or any first world standards).
I read it in a recent issue of the NY times... I remember it distinctly because I was surprised by the number.. I thought it was _A LOT_ lower. Can't find the article though...
I don't know about Europe, but in the U.S., aprox 85% of the goods consumed here are produced right here in the U.S. That percentage is down quite a bit (it used to be in the lower 90%s in 1992), but we still produce the vast majority of our own goods..
Our trade deficit with China is 200 billion dollars.. the U.S. economy is worth 12.37 trillion dollars..
While I won't pretend that China falling wouldn't effect the U.S. for the worst, it certainly wouldn't result in the fall of the U.S. We DO depend on China... but they are more dependent on the U.S. than the U.S. is dependent on China.
Our moderate dependence on China is relatively recent.. while their economy is almost entirely the result of international demand (resulting in the trade imbalances they run with their trading partners), the U.S. economy is the result of domestic demand.. As long as that domestic demand is present, the U.S. economy can and will survive without China.. just as we did 10-15 years ago before China became a major trading partner.
I completely agree with you. Communism on a large scale would only work in a fantasy land. It ignores basic human nature.
There are many problems with Communism.. but lets take a look at one (possibly the largest) problem:
"The people" as a whole, own the property.
But the government controls the people.. so in reality, the government controls the property.
And if the government controls the property, what we are really saying is a handful of people (our representatives, if you will) control the property.
That small group of people is a few hundred (at best).
In capitalism.. even if the wealth is distributed extremely unfairly.. there are still more people in control of that wealth than in communism. Lets say 1% of the people in a capitalist country control 99% of the wealth.. well in the U.S. that 1% would be 3 million people; Russia: 1.5-2 million; China: 12 million people.
So instead of millions of people in control of 99% of the wealth, in communism we have a couple hundred people in control of 100% of the wealth.
In other words, communism results in power and wealth being _MORE_ consolidated than in capitalism.
And with the power consolidated in the hands of a handful of people, we get the abuses we see when it is implemented. Those handful of people will abuse their position in order to keep their position of power. They will abuse their position for their own gain, and 'The people' will be the losers in the system.
Yes, I know this is the opposite of what Marx imagined.. but that is the result in reality.
Karl Marx wrote, ". . . the human essence is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of social relations." Marx's idea was that a change in the "ensemble of social relations" can change "the human essence."
He really did think human nature could be changed.. And if that is what you believe, why not ignore the aspects of human nature that you don't like? They can always be changed.
And with regards to the government control of wealth, don't reply with: "why would there be a government at all"... Because people naturally form hierarchies.. so there will always be someone who will be in control over The People.
So in summary: The abuses we see/saw in the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba, and China are exactly what Communism is in reality.
$7.88 in 1980 is worth $20 today.. so with inflation, the price for CDs has actually decreased.
uh... inflation makes money worth MORE??? I think you need a dictionary.
I own a small business, and one of my job functions is marketing.. not once have I ever seen $100/million impressions.
I think you don't know what you are talking about.. and you're posting bullshit because you got called on it.
when you are reading ad rates, CPM stands for "Cost Per Milli" or in other words "Cost per thousand" impressions. So when you see $100/CPM (which is actually a bit high -- even slashdot only costs aprox $40/CPM), you're talking about $100,000 for 1 million impressions.
Their policy of birth constraint is fairly new.
See my other post: It is NOT the result of 2000 years of gradual population growth. It is the result of the past 50 years of massive population growth that has more than doubled the Chinese population.
As one can see from this chart, for most of the past 2000 years China's population fluctuated between some 60 and 110 million. A significant increase in population only occurred during the Qing dynasty, when China's population reached the 400 million level. However, there is no historical precedence to China's modern population growth since the 1950, which doubled a 550 million population in less then 40 years.
So, starting in 1950, they doubled their population over 40 years. If they had the 550 million they had 50 years ago, the pollution in China wouldn't be as large of a problem as it is today.
Their massive population growth is a problem they created -- the pollution created by that population growth is part of that problem.
look at Seagate.. only manufacturer (that I know of) that has a 5 year warranty.. I have 8 of them, no problems yet. Too bad their latest drives are made in China :(
With Cuba, our strategy was defined decades ago with the embargo. The emargo was enacted after Fidel declared its alliance with the USSR, and was a result of our Coldwar strategy. The embargo continues partly due to the feelings Americans have toward Cuba, and the 1.2 million Cuban immigrants that live in the U.S. (1.2 million immigrants == a lot of sway with politicians, a lot of people to tell stories about why they left, etc). We have been reluctant to change our strategy with Cuba, due mostly to fears that we would be giving into Fidel's requests.. essentially legitimizing his regime.
Our strategy with China is a lot more recent. It's based on the belief that as China opens its markets (which is pretty much required to sustain their economic growth), the people become richer, the country becomes more developed, etc, that the people of China will demand their rights. We haven't seen this effect yet. Personally, I'm not convinced it actually exists, but that is what our representatives are saying.
Our strategy with China may not last much longer. With the flood of Chinese goods entering America (and a massive trade imbalance), partly due to China's currency policies, and several anti-US war-like statements from Chinese Generals, there was talk/legislation written about an across-the-board tariff on Chinese goods.
That was supported by many. However, it was shelved after China allowed their currency to float against a basket of currencies, and within a narrow band that China defined.
That was deemed good enough at the time. However, support is once again growing for those tariffs, and if China does not make further policy changes, we will likely see those tariffs sometime next year.
There is also talk about the Coldwar repeating, but this time with China. China is estimated to have at least the 3rd (behind Russia), possibly the 2nd, largest military budget in the World. They already have the largest # of troops in the world, and have been acquiring quite a bit of military hardware (tanks, subs, etc). A couple of Chinese Generals have made statements about what-ifs in a war against America; one General made a statement saying China would have no problem using nukes against the U.S. should we ever try to intervene in a war between China and Taiwan.
Although a Coldwar between China and the U.S. certainly seems like a possibility, we may not see one for several decades. But when it does come, you can be sure to see an embargo against China, and any nation that allies themselves with China.
Hope this shed a little light on U.S. policy, and why we treat China and Cuba differently.
But that wasn't even the point... That is how America views Cuba.. and you can't expect us to lift an embargo (that would essentially legitimize Castro) that has been in place for decades.
That is the *American* viewpoint, and that is why the majority of Americans still support the embargo.
the FACT is that 10% of the Cuban population lives in the U.S. If things are OK in Cuba, why are they fleeing from Cuba. Everytime Fidel has opened the gates, and has said he will not punish them for leaving, (tens, even hundreds of) thousands flee from Cuba. This is why it is punishable by death to attempt to leave Cuba. Over 200,000 people (1959-1962) fled from Cuba before the embargo was put in place.
This directly contradicts what you are saying.. if the people of Cuba were ok.. if everything was ok in Cuba (except the embargo), the people of Cuba would not be so desperate to leave.
Can you imagine if 10% of America fled to Europe (that would be 30 million people)? The world would (rightly) wonder what the hell is wrong with America. But here we are in the same situation (but with Cuba and U.S.), and you want us to believe everything is A.OK.
and BTW.. I don't buy things from WalMart.
Yes, yes.. I know... Everything I said was just American propaganda.. everything is great in Cuba.. everyone is happy.. Ten percent of the Cuban population has NOT fled to America.. Everything is great in Cuba!
I think you are confused about the history of the relationship between Cuba and the U.S.
Fidel Castro came to power in 1959. The embargo wasn't enacted until 1962 after Cuba declared its alliance with the Soviet Union. Before the embargo, between 1959 and 1962, more than 200,000 people had fled Cuba for the United States.
The Cuban refugees were fleeing Cuba before the U.S. embargo, and they continue to do so. Not because of the U.S., but because of Fidel Castro.
Here's a link for you to read more about it: Immigration: Cuba: Crossing the Straits
so.. the fact that they list a number of concerns about the USA, makes the articles they have about Cuba distorted? huh?
Fine.. Never did really like Wikipedia.. here are some links to Amnesty International:
The main page for Cuba
The Sinking of the "13 de Marzo" Tugboat
One of the many articles on the "Prisoners of Conscience"
Dozens of AI articles about Cuba
Those incidents in Nicaragua and Chile were not supported by the American public.. those were operations carried out in secret (by the CIA).
The abuses in Cuba are hardly unknown by Americans.. plenty of attention has been given to the subject. And while I'll agree we support some pretty despicable regimes, there are very few countries that have had more immigrants land on our shores asking for amnesty.
Over 1 millions people have fled from Cuba and are now living in the U.S. (mostly Florida).
So.. here's a rhetorical (and hypothetical) question for you:
If you lived in France, and every year people from Tunisia would risk death on rafts that barely float, starving, and damn near dead to arrive at your shores asking for amnesty..
What would you think about Tunisia? Because those feelings are how America feels about Cuba.
Human Rights in Cuba
Dr. Armando Lago, of the Association for the Study of the Cuban Economy, cites the following numbers in "The Human Cost of Social Revolution":
* 15,000 to 18,000 executed for counterrevolutionary activities
* 1,000 extrajudicial assassinations
* 250 disappeared
* 500 died in prison for lack of medical attention
* 500 murdered in prison by guards
* 150 extrajudicial assassinations of women
In 1989, General Arnaldo Ochoa, once proclaimed "Hero of the Revolution" by Fidel Castro, along with three other high-ranking officers, was brought to trial for drug trafficking. This offense carries a maximum sentence of 20 years, but Ochoa and the others were convicted of treason, and promptly executed, largely on the basis of secret evidence.
In March 2003, the government of Cuba arrested dozens of journalists, librarians, and human rights activists, and charged them with sedition due to their alleged contacts with James Cason, head of the U.S. interest section in Havana. The accused were tried and sentenced to prison terms ranging from 15 to 28 years. In all, 75 journalists, librarians, and dissidents were given lengthy sentences averaging 17 years each. Among those sentenced were poet and journalist Raul Rivero, economist Martha Beatriz Roque, and Christian activist Oscar Elías Biscet. Amnesty International described the closed-door trials as "hasty and manifestly unfair."
According to Human Rights Watch, the Cuban government has broad authority to restrict freedom of speech, association, assembly, press, and movement.
Cuba's constitution of 1976 makes human rights subservient to the state's political aims. Article 62 states:
Another clause in the 1976 Cuban constitition states that anyone suspected of being prone to commit a crime in the future, as a preventive measure, can be sent to jail indefinitely.
13 de Marzo Incident:
On July 13, 1994, 72 Cuban attempted to leave the island of Cuba on a World War II era tugboat named the "13 de Marzo". In an attempt by the Cuban Navy to stop the tugboat, patrol boats were sent out to interdict the tug. Crewmen and survivors reported that the interdiction vessels rammed the tugboat and sprayed its passengers with high pressure fire hoses, sweeping many overboard. A total of 41 men, women and children drowned after being swept off the tugs deck, 11 of these were children under the age of 12.
And that is just a few of the examples I found within 5 minutes... the abuses just go on and on and on...
you are talking about a billionaire. If I have a billion in the bank, and have 0 income, then I pay zero tax under the current system.
There are very few billionaires who don't use their money for something.. at the very least they are collecting interest on their money, and they have some of it invested in other companies, etc.
Right now.. the billionaire would pay income tax in their investments. Under FairTax, they would pay nothing on the millions (sometimes billions) they make from their investments.
That is always going to be the case (for any reasonable tax system).
While rich folks may pay a smaller percentage of their income as taxes,
The question is really whether they are going to be paying less of their income in taxes than they currently do. FairTax would certainly result in the rich paying fewer dollars than they currently do.
The government still has the same budget.. still wants/is going to spend the same amount as before FairTax...
So who is going to make up for the fewer dollars being collected from the rich?
The working class
The disparity between the rich and poor is already widening. With FairTax -- where the rich pay fewer dollars to taxes than they do currently -- that widening disparity will accelerate.
So the net result with FairTax is that the tax burden is shifted from the rich to lower income earning individuals (ie: the working class).