These people don't actually understand the culture, people, or millions of factors involved, so should not talk this way uneducated
Yes, for my very good reason in the comments
45%
5 votes
55%
6 votes
If you are educated on the topic/subject, then you can have an opinion, but most people aren't
We can't fix the US, but we can help by educating people who live in the US. There already are politicians who have knowledge do fixing job just fine, but they lack power. Ron Paul for example.
Ron Paul!!! Ha, that was the moment I stopped taking you seriously. Libertarians are hated internationally, so no ones going to agree with you there in another country
Ron Paul's stance on the drug war and foreign policy would have pleased other countries. These are also the two things I disagreed with him most about
Like economics? With hope
Austrian economics was a pretty poor design, but had zero chance of ever being implemented if Paul was president. However, I support his ideas to eliminate Social Security and privatizing some federal agencies. However, I wasn't a fan of his plans to legalize all drugs and to cut all foreign aid. If anything, the US needs to offer more assistance to developing countries to open up new markets in the future.
I can agree. Some agencies do need to be made into free markets, but some things also need to be nationalized (Banks).
I would disagree, and cite the Federal Reserve's poor job and management. However, I do think banks need regulation at a federal level, with limits on interest and such.
Poor management is something I can agree on, but monetary analysis shows a need for national banking. I made a poll on the topic.
Do you think all banks should be nationalized, or just a few?
In a perfect world, all banks would be nationalized with low interest rates. In the realistic world, national banks would coincide with free market ones. The Federal Reserve is much cheaper for the middle and lower class to bank with, but the ultra conservatives always hold up its expansion.
A fully nationalized banking system would eliminate competitive interest rates, allowing the government to set limits as they please. A bank like the Fed. Reserve is necessary only to strengthen smaller banks and lower debt. By nationalizing all banks, you would end up with a fragile financial system that could easily collapse, or cause the collapse of many corporations. Without competitive interest rates, corporate growth would be hindered. It would also steer lending away from certain 'unattractive' sectors, leading to lopsided development in industry.
Currently, the Federal Reserve has almost non existent interest rates, but I get what your saying. A fully nationalized banking system would have freedom to control interest rates to its liking. Fortunately, this can easily be fixed with a couple constitutional clauses. An interest ceiling for example.
And no, high interest rates do not hinder corporate growth to any alarming level. I would be happy with simply expanding the Federal Reserve we have now
In a ideal national banking system, interest rates would not exist. Interest rates are artificially designed to attract people to deposit in their banks. In a nationalized system, citizens would not be entitled to bank interest or anything else. Your theory also only works if the government was evil, and intentionally was trying to strangle money out of people. Which is silly.
First you need to identify the problem. Which is obviously the democrips and rebloodlicans. Then you need to remember what George Washing said about political parties, and realise that an independent hasn't been elected since George Washington himself.
Then finally you need to SLAP YOUR SELF ON THE HEAD FOR BEING A SILLY LITTLE AMERICAN!
Why did they let you back on this site? Your old record was making anti theist polls with one answer and posting pornography
Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and 
If the person is truly educated, then we should listen to their advice, but when some random middle aged Canadian starts ranting.... Hint Hint
Many Europeans for instance like to bring up the many social programs their countries have and say that the US should do the same, not recognizing that we have 300 million people, and also are obligated to protect many other countries, esp. in Europe, economically and militarily (we send the most in UN ops). It is extremely hard to implement things like free health care and national education reform, as they suggest, with a budget so stretched and a population so large.
I find the question a bit ironic. I know many Americans who have a problem with the fact that for a very long time the US has been trying to fix the rest of the world. A lot of them are tired of the repercussions this has caused for America. No doubt someone will take this as an anti-American comment. It isn't meant that way, at all.