It's amazing in today's society anything slightly positive about the U.S is evil propaganda. The film uses past conflicts and tensions between nations and people, which still last today. The basic question is what would happen to the world if there was no fear of intervention. The film provides both sides of the argument of US intervention. There is no way to fit in every detail in a single film, as the world is much more complicated than many seem to believe. It's worth watching for an overview of world tensions. The film shows how nations are slow or do not react to atrocities, while it appears everyone waits to when the US will intervene. It's apparent by some of the reviews on this web site and people inteviewed in the film that people do not have a solution to prevent genocide, yet still claim the US did not need to intervene and use the old argument if the US intervenes in one nation it should invade other nations that commit crimes against its people. Yet facts seem not to matter and would rather point out the people killed by the US, but no mention of the people killed by a nations own government.
12 Reviews
Decline and Fall
deanofrpps8 July 2010
There is a certain determinism in the lives of people and nations. The World Without The US host an interesting premise but fails in delivery of scenarios which might accompany the collapse of the US's foreign presence.
The ability of the US to continue embark upon endless foreign adventures such as the wars now pending is extremely questionable. It all boils down to a question of personnel, money and equipment. Eventually with multiple foreign adventures that bring in nothing but cause an outflow of cash, you'll run out of money or people or both, assuming of course that the determination to continue in the course of foreign adventures does fail beforehand.
The World Without the US does not consider the question of exhaustion of human and financial resources. The author of this video a foreign immigrant does not consider the difficulty the US government faces in recruiting and maintaining members of the Armed Forces or the lack of money to continue these costly adventures. How many years would the author be willing to serve to help man foreign adventures?
The ability of the US to continue embark upon endless foreign adventures such as the wars now pending is extremely questionable. It all boils down to a question of personnel, money and equipment. Eventually with multiple foreign adventures that bring in nothing but cause an outflow of cash, you'll run out of money or people or both, assuming of course that the determination to continue in the course of foreign adventures does fail beforehand.
The World Without the US does not consider the question of exhaustion of human and financial resources. The author of this video a foreign immigrant does not consider the difficulty the US government faces in recruiting and maintaining members of the Armed Forces or the lack of money to continue these costly adventures. How many years would the author be willing to serve to help man foreign adventures?
USA patting on the back
sprogovac5 June 2013
While rather interesting at times, the only people this movie will convince are Americans themselves.
The movie went to great lengths trying to explain that American interventionism was humanitarian based and not based on greed or colonialism. They used the example of Iraq selling more contracts to non US based firms, in fact firms that were not directly involved in the US invasion (putting aside how short sighted this argument is and how it doesn't understand world markets, all of which I will bore the people reading this to explain why that argument is faulty) can be easily rebutted: Africa. The USA keeps involving herself in the middle east but the humanitarian disasters are all in Africa and based around the Congo civil war which over 5 million people died. Why intervene in the Balkans for some 250,000 people when the biggest humanitarian nightmare is the Congo? The Rwanda genocide (a spin off of this larger civil war) claimed 800,000 lives. Srebrenica claimed 8,000 (and largely fighting age men). That's a factor of 100 in magnitude difference.
Lastly, the movie made her own achilles heel without realizing it: Taiwan. Just like the first world war was started over Serbia due to bigger powers having competing interests, so can Taiwan. With US insistence on protecting it at all costs, the world risks a thermo- nuclear war. With no such assurance, the world risks a very minor, very local conflict.
In the end, the reason the US keeps up the gigantic spending is because people don't want to be fired. Think about it. The military is now the largest employer and an effective lobbyier. Despite bases in Europe serving no purpose (whose going to invade Germany again?) we maintain them because the people paying our congressmen don't want to see their budgets cut.
The movie went to great lengths trying to explain that American interventionism was humanitarian based and not based on greed or colonialism. They used the example of Iraq selling more contracts to non US based firms, in fact firms that were not directly involved in the US invasion (putting aside how short sighted this argument is and how it doesn't understand world markets, all of which I will bore the people reading this to explain why that argument is faulty) can be easily rebutted: Africa. The USA keeps involving herself in the middle east but the humanitarian disasters are all in Africa and based around the Congo civil war which over 5 million people died. Why intervene in the Balkans for some 250,000 people when the biggest humanitarian nightmare is the Congo? The Rwanda genocide (a spin off of this larger civil war) claimed 800,000 lives. Srebrenica claimed 8,000 (and largely fighting age men). That's a factor of 100 in magnitude difference.
Lastly, the movie made her own achilles heel without realizing it: Taiwan. Just like the first world war was started over Serbia due to bigger powers having competing interests, so can Taiwan. With US insistence on protecting it at all costs, the world risks a thermo- nuclear war. With no such assurance, the world risks a very minor, very local conflict.
In the end, the reason the US keeps up the gigantic spending is because people don't want to be fired. Think about it. The military is now the largest employer and an effective lobbyier. Despite bases in Europe serving no purpose (whose going to invade Germany again?) we maintain them because the people paying our congressmen don't want to see their budgets cut.
Nasty propaganda
fustbariclation14 July 2011
It's odd, but we happened to watch another unashamed propaganda film - perhaps propaganda is like buses, they arrive in clumps - we also watched a propaganda film about creationism ('Expelled'), this week.
Again, it's just Leni Riefenstahl re-make. Only somebody ignorant of history since WWII and naive to the techniques of emotional manipulation, lying by omission and logical fallacies would be persuaded by this rubbish.
Amazingly, for what claims to be a documentary, the film ends with a long clip from a post- apocalyptic science fiction film, full of scenes of destruction & weeping children - not as a reminder of what was done to Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and the firebombing of Tokyo), but to try to support the claim that the world needs the 'protection' of those who committed the atrocities to be safe....
I do wonder about this sort of propaganda. It can't actually be intended to persuade anybody who has a mind. I suppose that it must be, like Leni Riefenstahl's films, something to persuade those who follow the party line, but can't help having strong moral qualms, that the end justifies the means. Atrocities, massacres, assassinations and invasions are all fine, decent things to do, as long as they are done in the name of the right Fatherland.
Again, it's just Leni Riefenstahl re-make. Only somebody ignorant of history since WWII and naive to the techniques of emotional manipulation, lying by omission and logical fallacies would be persuaded by this rubbish.
Amazingly, for what claims to be a documentary, the film ends with a long clip from a post- apocalyptic science fiction film, full of scenes of destruction & weeping children - not as a reminder of what was done to Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and the firebombing of Tokyo), but to try to support the claim that the world needs the 'protection' of those who committed the atrocities to be safe....
I do wonder about this sort of propaganda. It can't actually be intended to persuade anybody who has a mind. I suppose that it must be, like Leni Riefenstahl's films, something to persuade those who follow the party line, but can't help having strong moral qualms, that the end justifies the means. Atrocities, massacres, assassinations and invasions are all fine, decent things to do, as long as they are done in the name of the right Fatherland.
Very biased and One sided look at US role in the world, and what could potentially happen if the US became isolationary.
thornsthorns13 April 2011
Warning: Spoilers
To be honest the documentary is quite entertaining enough, but due to its excessively biased viewpoint (hidden by an air of neutrality) it frankly made the whole program a worthless endeavour on an educational front. A more realistic neutral outlook of the US and what would happen to the world without the US would have been better. Its really A 1.5 hr long justification of US military imperialism.
The whole program is merely geared towards justifying US occupation of other nations on the 3 grounds 1) The world needs the US to police it, as no one else is willing to do it 2) US is doing it out of global interests including the invading peoples interests, and other countries benefit. And these people want them there. 3) The world would descend into ww3 if the US became isolationary
Frankly I found the documentary to be just to ridiculous. While it makes a few interesting points its really all just propaganda.
Examples of its biased arguments are
1) Kuwaitis live better than Americans, therefore invasion of Iraq and liberation of Kuwait was a good thing and not about stealing oil.
Completely ignores how Iraqis' were murdered in their millions due to the occupation and their oil was and is being stolen by the billion. It's just disappearing. Completely ignores the fact that Kuwaitis number only a million people, and stealing trillions of dollars of oil from Iraq and Kuwait, whilst keeping a million Kuwaitis happy with no taxes is not hard. Try doing that to a nation the size of Iraq, and the whole of Middle East it's not so easy.
2) If US does not interfere genocide will occur in these countries like in Yugoslavia, that is why the US interferes militarily. And the people of these countries want them to save them.
It delves into the collapse of Yugoslavia and justifies US military interference of other nations, on the reasoning US was the only one that stopped the civil war there, no one else did. And tries to imply that is why the US is invading other countries. But then brushes over the fact that the US chose not to interfere in many other instances of genocides. Which occurred before and after Yugoslavia and still do to this day.
3) WW2 started in Asia with the invasion by Japan? Where the hell did they get this oxford professor from?
The oxford professor (Niall ferguson - who seems to have this habit of justifying the crimes of western imperialists too often from rothchilds to kissinger) they use in this program really has a skewered version of history, it's almost laughable if it wasn't for the fact he is being taken seriously as a professional. WW2 started in Europe, anyone with half a brain knows that. WW2 militarily started in Europe with the axis and allies forming their little groups, which then guaranteed war. They were militarising their armies and industries 10 years before the war even started, both sides, both the allies and the axis. WW2 economic and political causes lay in WW1 another world war started by Europe. Japan joined the axis, but did not start the war. This program tries to lie about this.
4) Israel will be wiped off the face of the map quite easily if the US did not protect it, due to its weak and small military.
This is such a HUGE lie. The Israeli military has NUCLEAR weapons, state of the art military navy, air and land force. The entire Middle East could not stand more than 1 week against the Israeli military, and that is a fact that this program lies completely about.
5) Middle east would descend into chaos, and the Middle Eastern people want the US there. They do not feel it is right for the US to benefit from their oil, without guaranteeing civil peace there.
Again another huge lie. The vast majority of people in the Middle East do not want the US or any western country on their soil. Whilst it is true if the US left, the Middle East would potentially descend into chaos. That chaos would not last for more than a few years if not more than a few months. The Middle East does not have a manufacturing industry unlike the west, and a sustained war is not possible without bullets, guns, tanks, grenades, missiles, choppers etc. So none of the nations in the Middle East would last long in a war with their neighbouring nation for long. If they had to rely on their own military and manufacturing industries. They would be forced into becoming 1 giant nation either by 1 side winning, or by the need for peace.
This of course assumes the US also leaves the Middle East militarily and financially by not selling arms to both sides, etc. One of the reason the Iran Iraq war last for nearly a decade was due to the fact that the US-EU were selling arms ILLEGALLY to both sides, Iraq and Iran, so no side gained an advantage. And trying to drag the war out for as long as possible to destroy their industries and get them into usury debt. Known as the Iran-contra affair.
CONTINUED ON FORUMS DUE TO WORLD LIMIT FOR FULL REVIEW
The whole program is merely geared towards justifying US occupation of other nations on the 3 grounds 1) The world needs the US to police it, as no one else is willing to do it 2) US is doing it out of global interests including the invading peoples interests, and other countries benefit. And these people want them there. 3) The world would descend into ww3 if the US became isolationary
Frankly I found the documentary to be just to ridiculous. While it makes a few interesting points its really all just propaganda.
Examples of its biased arguments are
1) Kuwaitis live better than Americans, therefore invasion of Iraq and liberation of Kuwait was a good thing and not about stealing oil.
Completely ignores how Iraqis' were murdered in their millions due to the occupation and their oil was and is being stolen by the billion. It's just disappearing. Completely ignores the fact that Kuwaitis number only a million people, and stealing trillions of dollars of oil from Iraq and Kuwait, whilst keeping a million Kuwaitis happy with no taxes is not hard. Try doing that to a nation the size of Iraq, and the whole of Middle East it's not so easy.
2) If US does not interfere genocide will occur in these countries like in Yugoslavia, that is why the US interferes militarily. And the people of these countries want them to save them.
It delves into the collapse of Yugoslavia and justifies US military interference of other nations, on the reasoning US was the only one that stopped the civil war there, no one else did. And tries to imply that is why the US is invading other countries. But then brushes over the fact that the US chose not to interfere in many other instances of genocides. Which occurred before and after Yugoslavia and still do to this day.
3) WW2 started in Asia with the invasion by Japan? Where the hell did they get this oxford professor from?
The oxford professor (Niall ferguson - who seems to have this habit of justifying the crimes of western imperialists too often from rothchilds to kissinger) they use in this program really has a skewered version of history, it's almost laughable if it wasn't for the fact he is being taken seriously as a professional. WW2 started in Europe, anyone with half a brain knows that. WW2 militarily started in Europe with the axis and allies forming their little groups, which then guaranteed war. They were militarising their armies and industries 10 years before the war even started, both sides, both the allies and the axis. WW2 economic and political causes lay in WW1 another world war started by Europe. Japan joined the axis, but did not start the war. This program tries to lie about this.
4) Israel will be wiped off the face of the map quite easily if the US did not protect it, due to its weak and small military.
This is such a HUGE lie. The Israeli military has NUCLEAR weapons, state of the art military navy, air and land force. The entire Middle East could not stand more than 1 week against the Israeli military, and that is a fact that this program lies completely about.
5) Middle east would descend into chaos, and the Middle Eastern people want the US there. They do not feel it is right for the US to benefit from their oil, without guaranteeing civil peace there.
Again another huge lie. The vast majority of people in the Middle East do not want the US or any western country on their soil. Whilst it is true if the US left, the Middle East would potentially descend into chaos. That chaos would not last for more than a few years if not more than a few months. The Middle East does not have a manufacturing industry unlike the west, and a sustained war is not possible without bullets, guns, tanks, grenades, missiles, choppers etc. So none of the nations in the Middle East would last long in a war with their neighbouring nation for long. If they had to rely on their own military and manufacturing industries. They would be forced into becoming 1 giant nation either by 1 side winning, or by the need for peace.
This of course assumes the US also leaves the Middle East militarily and financially by not selling arms to both sides, etc. One of the reason the Iran Iraq war last for nearly a decade was due to the fact that the US-EU were selling arms ILLEGALLY to both sides, Iraq and Iran, so no side gained an advantage. And trying to drag the war out for as long as possible to destroy their industries and get them into usury debt. Known as the Iran-contra affair.
CONTINUED ON FORUMS DUE TO WORLD LIMIT FOR FULL REVIEW
Worthless Propaganda
DougWilliams8827 March 2013
I expected to see an objective look at what the rest of the world might actually do if the US military withdrew and left them in peace. Instead I got a triumphalist showcasing of all the USA's most successful military interventions, brought to us by a bunch of Ivory Tower foreign policy elites who would be scrubbing our floors if they didn't have fancy jobs in the State Department and university international studies departments.
I love how they skip right over US atrocities in Iraq to show how happy the Kuwaitis are that we protect them. I turned it off right there. I've seen enough American propaganda in my life. How about a movie that shows all the children around the world who have been killed by US bombing missions?
I love how they skip right over US atrocities in Iraq to show how happy the Kuwaitis are that we protect them. I turned it off right there. I've seen enough American propaganda in my life. How about a movie that shows all the children around the world who have been killed by US bombing missions?
What it all boils down to
tadpole_navy22 August 2012
Although gimmicky at times, and full of unneeded "beating of the dead horse" examples of how horrible the human race can be, this film actually has a very interesting message. What would happen if the United States did not have a military presence overseas? Then one begins to see that in the last 100 years, the Unites States has not "invaded" another country without it explicitly being related to the fact the supreme leader of that region was directly responsible for genocide.
Rather or not the film was well done, it got the message across to me clear as day. As a human race in the 20th century, will we tolerate the possibility of genocide happening at any place at any given time? If the answer is no, then we simply cannot leave any of these countries until they themselves are capable of not letting that happen again. If your answer is yes, then the entire United States deficit problem would be completely taken care of in 8-10 years. As selfish as I may be sometimes, I myself am going to have to side with absolutely no genocide tolerated anywhere. We are beyond that as a species, and that simply cannot be tolerated in any way. How that train of thought ever escaped my thought process, well it beats me.
Rather or not the film was well done, it got the message across to me clear as day. As a human race in the 20th century, will we tolerate the possibility of genocide happening at any place at any given time? If the answer is no, then we simply cannot leave any of these countries until they themselves are capable of not letting that happen again. If your answer is yes, then the entire United States deficit problem would be completely taken care of in 8-10 years. As selfish as I may be sometimes, I myself am going to have to side with absolutely no genocide tolerated anywhere. We are beyond that as a species, and that simply cannot be tolerated in any way. How that train of thought ever escaped my thought process, well it beats me.
Huge disappointment, and badly put together.
younngl1 July 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Going into this film I was hoping for an objective view of what the future would look like if America backed out of the world stage. As it turns out, all this film does is pat America on the back without showing both sides of these situations. You see a very brief history of warfare in the Balkans, Middle East, and the Far East Asia but you don't see the issues American presence has caused, nor does this film analyze whether or not our presence truly helps more than it harms.
To top it off, they did a lot of talking about the incompetence of the EU when it comes to their militaries, and why the EU couldn't handle it themselves. What they don't even mention is Russia, and how that would impact the world if America backed off the world stage. It is truly an uneducated and uninformed documentary(more like Mockumentary).
To top it off, they did a lot of talking about the incompetence of the EU when it comes to their militaries, and why the EU couldn't handle it themselves. What they don't even mention is Russia, and how that would impact the world if America backed off the world stage. It is truly an uneducated and uninformed documentary(more like Mockumentary).
The other side of the coin
GoranToo22 August 2012
This film is a breath of fresh air in the group think that grips public opinion in US and worldwide. The content is well researched, supported by facts and number of credible insiders. It explains why the isolationist policy that US practiced before world wars is not the answer and how regional conflicts left intact can explode and come back to hunt us. Film reveals for example that, despite the outcry and huge material and life sacrifices, US firms did not have preferential treatment in Iraq.
It also shows that those who stand on the side of freedom and democracy world wide expect the USA to act to protect them and those ideals. US presence is the only thing preventing North Korea from invading South, China from invading Taiwan, Arab countries from invading Kuwait, Arab countries from invading Israel, Israel from invading West Bank etc. Now that threat of USSR has abated, European public opinion on this subject is naive and inadequate. Europeans born after 1980 have no memory of cold war during which the only thing standing between Stalinism and self destructed Europe was the US. How does all this compute for those who accuse US of imperialism? Looking at some of the reviews here, it doesn't.
Fact is that we may live to see the world in which US can no longer afford this role. Perhaps Europeans will take over and keep the world stable with considerable firepower of their cynicism.
@thornsthorns: If you consider that Japan was at war with China and Russia in Early 1930s WWII did start in Asia.
It also shows that those who stand on the side of freedom and democracy world wide expect the USA to act to protect them and those ideals. US presence is the only thing preventing North Korea from invading South, China from invading Taiwan, Arab countries from invading Kuwait, Arab countries from invading Israel, Israel from invading West Bank etc. Now that threat of USSR has abated, European public opinion on this subject is naive and inadequate. Europeans born after 1980 have no memory of cold war during which the only thing standing between Stalinism and self destructed Europe was the US. How does all this compute for those who accuse US of imperialism? Looking at some of the reviews here, it doesn't.
Fact is that we may live to see the world in which US can no longer afford this role. Perhaps Europeans will take over and keep the world stable with considerable firepower of their cynicism.
@thornsthorns: If you consider that Japan was at war with China and Russia in Early 1930s WWII did start in Asia.
A much needed look at the US role in the world
haralambie18 June 2008
I was a bit apprehensive about this film since it seemed to be such "one of a kind" so I had a look at their website before ordering. The trailer I saw really got my interest, the premise seemed to be so interesting and so timely for our nation. It reminded me a lot of another film, called "Why we fight?" (very popular about 2 years ago) trying to answer the same question, what is the purpose of the US meddling in the entire world? While "Why we fight" was a bit of a disappointment, this film really delivered on the promise. After the first twenty minutes you figure that the director is working an angle on the debate, but what I really liked is that he is building a really logical, coherent argument that I could follow from one end to another. And he surely supports it with footage from around the world.
I also liked the fact that it was more than an intellectual exercise. The film had some very touching personal stories that I didn't expect in a "geo-political" documentary. It made it one of those films that you still think about the second day after you saw it. As a minus, I wish the film makers also investigated some other regions also, say, South America or Africa... but I guess there is only so much time...
I also liked the fact that it was more than an intellectual exercise. The film had some very touching personal stories that I didn't expect in a "geo-political" documentary. It made it one of those films that you still think about the second day after you saw it. As a minus, I wish the film makers also investigated some other regions also, say, South America or Africa... but I guess there is only so much time...
Well, the point about people not being personally responsible is valid...
nightheron2327 August 2012
Excellent Pro- America propaganda. I really liked where this piece of pro-American foreign policy propaganda included N.Korean pro-communist propaganda to point an accusing finger at N.Korea. Yeah, N.Korea is insane...but Irony is amusing. Makes some "interesting" and potentially convincing points...if it wasn't leaving out some HUGE inconvenient plot holes. lol.
Although, one of the central points, of how others refuse to take responsibility for themselves, is valid.
Still, leaving out how we put Saddam in power, including flag waving "we love Israel" with no reason for WHY given, and saying that we had left Egypt abandoned and impoverished...when in actuality we have been giving Egypt BILLIONS in pay-off money...to a regime that was awful. All while the theme was the US CARES about oppressed peoples.
Although, one of the central points, of how others refuse to take responsibility for themselves, is valid.
Still, leaving out how we put Saddam in power, including flag waving "we love Israel" with no reason for WHY given, and saying that we had left Egypt abandoned and impoverished...when in actuality we have been giving Egypt BILLIONS in pay-off money...to a regime that was awful. All while the theme was the US CARES about oppressed peoples.
Every American Needs to See This
batson-robert30 January 2013
First, this IS NOT a U.S. criticism film . It's just one that describes our current standing in all parts of the world and then asks, "What if we weren't there? What might occur if brought home our soldiers, sailors and airmen and closed down all these bases and outposts in all of the 90+ countries in the world?" This documentary was an quite an eye-opener for myself because I had never seen an almost fully encompassed story regarding what U.S. foreign policy have and has done; haven't done and the decisions made by multiple presidential administrations regarding our foreign policy and our sole superpower status and authority.
It also asks very many questions about our allies regarding what burden they carry or not, regarding maintaining peace and stability in the world. This is a question that each American citizen needs to understand completely. This point I cannot emphasize enough.
There are also numerous interviews from allied nations and some non-aligned nations regarding how they view us and what impact we currently make and some these interviews discuss the "What if the U.S. wasn't here?" question. These interviews are very sobering to say the least.
These are my words/opinion and are tangentially related to this film. In these last 12 years, since President George W. Bush (not his father, George H.W. Bush) and under President Barack Obama, with deficits soaring due to paying for two major wars and a number of other assisted military interventions in primarily the Middle East and North Africa and then with thousands (if not tens of thousands) Baby Boomer's retiring weekly (Full Disclosure: I'm considered a Boomer because I was born in 1964 however; I do not or ever have considered myself part of that generation and don't expect Social Security to be available to me until I'm 70 or older (if any, at all)), we are borrowing one dollar of every three dollars spend on our American Credit Card.For a detailed breakdown of our budget(s), please visit:
http://nationalpriorities.org/ - Non-political with accurate data
These are but two of the reasons why we have came to have multi-trillion annual deficits. Our total national debt is encroaching on the $20 trillion mark that will occur in the few years, unless we do these two things simultaneously: 1) Raise additional revenue and not just from personal income taxes (corporations need to bear a much larger portion) and 2) A serious reduction in spending annually in both military and entitlements. There will be hard choices for both the Democrats and Republicans to make in the next four years.
It also asks very many questions about our allies regarding what burden they carry or not, regarding maintaining peace and stability in the world. This is a question that each American citizen needs to understand completely. This point I cannot emphasize enough.
There are also numerous interviews from allied nations and some non-aligned nations regarding how they view us and what impact we currently make and some these interviews discuss the "What if the U.S. wasn't here?" question. These interviews are very sobering to say the least.
These are my words/opinion and are tangentially related to this film. In these last 12 years, since President George W. Bush (not his father, George H.W. Bush) and under President Barack Obama, with deficits soaring due to paying for two major wars and a number of other assisted military interventions in primarily the Middle East and North Africa and then with thousands (if not tens of thousands) Baby Boomer's retiring weekly (Full Disclosure: I'm considered a Boomer because I was born in 1964 however; I do not or ever have considered myself part of that generation and don't expect Social Security to be available to me until I'm 70 or older (if any, at all)), we are borrowing one dollar of every three dollars spend on our American Credit Card.For a detailed breakdown of our budget(s), please visit:
http://nationalpriorities.org/ - Non-political with accurate data
These are but two of the reasons why we have came to have multi-trillion annual deficits. Our total national debt is encroaching on the $20 trillion mark that will occur in the few years, unless we do these two things simultaneously: 1) Raise additional revenue and not just from personal income taxes (corporations need to bear a much larger portion) and 2) A serious reduction in spending annually in both military and entitlements. There will be hard choices for both the Democrats and Republicans to make in the next four years.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
