I don't think there is a good argument for why you should get more of my money

[Anonymous]

Read Woodward's new book, "Obama's Wars."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Personally, I'd like to chip a chunk off the defense total. For a country that has been attacked only a few times in its entire history, it seems a tad excessive to spend nearly a fifth of our budget on it.

OK, I'm a dem, and a hippie, and a dove..... but maybe nobody attacks us because we have such a big defense budget?

We were attacked in 1941 and 2001

Ever hear this old adage: The best offense is a good defense. This is even truer for national security than as a sports analogy. The Defense budger is never cut because there are ways of hiding some of its budget. As for the PP who wants to chip off a chunk of the defense budget, if there were another attack, you would probably be the first to start ranting and raving.

No. I think we were safe enough with the 80's and 90's budgets. Did you think that Reagan was playing fast and loose with our security? If not, we should go back to that.

Any budgeting logic that says that more is better is fundamentally flawed.

Come-on now think it through. Here's the plan...1)drastically cut the defense budget 2) immediately leave Iraq 3) Immediately leave afghanistan. 4)Red states stock up on guns. 5) Red states stock up on supplies, harvest and store crops and secure wells and springs. 6) wait for New York, Washington, L.A. , and San Fransisco to be nuked by illegals smuggled over the border with nukes provided by South Korea and Iran . 7) Send in a scout from Virginia to see if the shadow of some helpless stupid urbanite shuffling across Connecticut Avenue in his sandals holding a latte from Starbucks has been perminently scorched into the Madams Organ building. 8) Have a huge party celebrating the new conservative, Tea-Party political dominance. 9) Have a huge Party celebrating all the good-looking country-goodness sweet smelling Sarah Palin like hotties that will replace the Hillary types. 10) Why do I have the feeling Bill Clinton will be there celebrating with the rest of us?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problem, OP, is that no one needs a good argument. You have the money, others want to use it to benefit someone else, and they have the votes. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner. The Democrats want you to be the dinner. As the economy worsens, more and more people are going to come around to that point of view. It really is about that simple, and there is not much to be done about it now. Too many people feel entitled to government benefits paid for by someone else, and we're past the point of no return on that issue, in my view.

This. History makes it very clear that minorities are always vulnerable to persecution -- racial minorities, ethnic minorities, and economic minorities. Witness the murder or imprisonment of intellectuals and the wealthy in 20th century China, the persecution of the Jews in Germany (much of the rhetoric against the Jews assailed their higher than average wealth), the murder of the economically advantaged Tutsis in Rwanda. The people who demand higher and higher tax rates for the "rich" are simply exhibiting a milder form of the same human impulse. OP, as long as you have more than someone, people will never believe that you are paying enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem, OP, is that no one needs a good argument. You have the money, others want to use it to benefit someone else, and they have the votes. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner. The Democrats want you to be the dinner. As the economy worsens, more and more people are going to come around to that point of view. It really is about that simple, and there is not much to be done about it now. Too many people feel entitled to government benefits paid for by someone else, and we're past the point of no return on that issue, in my view.

This. History makes it very clear that minorities are always vulnerable to persecution -- racial minorities, ethnic minorities, and economic minorities. Witness the murder or imprisonment of intellectuals and the wealthy in 20th century China, the persecution of the Jews in Germany (much of the rhetoric against the Jews assailed their higher than average wealth), the murder of the economically advantaged Tutsis in Rwanda. The people who demand higher and higher tax rates for the "rich" are simply exhibiting a milder form of the same human impulse. OP, as long as you have more than someone, people will never believe that you are paying enough.

Oh, the drama. We rich people are now comparing our "plight" to the holocaust, the Tutsis, and the repression of Chinese intellectuals? Oh brother! We have a constitution that protects against the tyranny of the minority. We'll be fine. A few percentage point change in the marginal tax rate is not the same as torture and death.

[Anonymous]

Remember the 1990s? Peace and prosperity? Ending the Bush tax cuts just restores tax rates to their levels when Clinton was president.

Better all around -- American prosperity depends on middle-class prosperity, workers as well as lawyers and bankers.

[Anonymous]

Clinton left the economy in a recession. Remember the dot com bust ? He also had no idea that Bin Laden was planning 911 even though he was in charge of national security. So Bush inherited a recession and a crappy national security situation. The terrorist act on the heels of a recession is one of the reasons the Fed lowered rates and housing was allowed to bubble because we needed the economic stimulus and couldn't afford a bad economy while Muslim extremists were at war with us and very well know our vulnerabilities. They are in this war for the long term.

[Anonymous]

Clintons economy was totally the result of the fake Dot-Com economy that imploded right as he left office. Very similar to Bush and the false housing economy. We need someone who will put the unions into their place and build a real manufacturing economy. We need about 75 nuclear plants. We need to drill oil. We need to build refinerys. We need to scrap Obama -care and charge anybody who comes to this country for specialized medical care a $50000 fee before they enter the hospital. We can build an economy on cheap energy and the things we are good at. Medicine, Technology, Drug development, Bio tech, Agriculture, Food processing, Financial services etc...We wasted the stimulus money, it should hav been spent on building nuclear plants and energy development.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Remember the 1990s? Peace and prosperity? Ending the Bush tax cuts just restores tax rates to their levels when Clinton was president.

Better all around -- American prosperity depends on middle-class prosperity, workers as well as lawyers and bankers.

If this is true, all Bush tax cuts should expire. Right? Not just on upper incomes, all of them.

[Anonymous]

That would do if our economy weren't in the worst shape it's been in since the Great Depression. The middle-class tax cuts shouldn't be extended forever, but right now businesses need customers. Lots of customers, not just the few who can afford luxury stuff.

The reason Bush gave for the tax cuts was that the Federal budget showed a surplus; he then blew the surplus on war.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Clinton left the economy in a recession. Remember the dot com bust ? He also had no idea that Bin Laden was planning 911 even though he was in charge of national security. So Bush inherited a recession and a crappy national security situation. The terrorist act on the heels of a recession is one of the reasons the Fed lowered rates and housing was allowed to bubble because we needed the economic stimulus and couldn't afford a bad economy while Muslim extremists were at war with us and very well know our vulnerabilities. They are in this war for the long term.

I thought you have been saying that it is wrong for presidents to blame their predecessors for everything bad that is happening. Is there a double standard here? Yes there is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Clintons economy was totally the result of the fake Dot-Com economy that imploded right as he left office. Very similar to Bush and the false housing economy. We need someone who will put the unions into their place and build a real manufacturing economy. We need about 75 nuclear plants. We need to drill oil. We need to build refinerys. We need to scrap Obama -care and charge anybody who comes to this country for specialized medical care a $50000 fee before they enter the hospital. We can build an economy on cheap energy and the things we are good at. Medicine, Technology, Drug development, Bio tech, Agriculture, Food processing, Financial services etc...We wasted the stimulus money, it should hav been spent on building nuclear plants and energy development.

And yet technology employment has grown faster than any other sector of the economy. You are confusing the stock market with the economy. They are two different things.

And the notion that stimulus money can build nuclear plants is absurd. You are totally talking out of your ass on that one. What's more, the private sector is scaling back on nuclear energy because as energy prices fall, it is too expensive. So unless you want the United States of Socialist America to build government run nuclear plants, your plan is DOA.

But by far the worst idea I have ever seen on this board is your plan to re-enter manufacturing. In case you haven't noticed, manufacturing moves to countries with low wages. Ergo, if we are to be competitive, we need to compete with south asian labor rates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Personally, I'd like to chip a chunk off the defense total. For a country that has been attacked only a few times in its entire history, it seems a tad excessive to spend nearly a fifth of our budget on it.

OK, I'm a dem, and a hippie, and a dove..... but maybe nobody attacks us because we have such a big defense budget?

We were attacked in 1941 and 2001

Ever hear this old adage: The best offense is a good defense. This is even truer for national security than as a sports analogy. The Defense budger is never cut because there are ways of hiding some of its budget. As for the PP who wants to chip off a chunk of the defense budget, if there were another attack, you would probably be the first to start ranting and raving.

No. I think we were safe enough with the 80's and 90's budgets. Did you think that Reagan was playing fast and loose with our security? If not, we should go back to that.

Any budgeting logic that says that more is better is fundamentally flawed.

Come-on now think it through. Here's the plan...1)drastically cut the defense budget 2) immediately leave Iraq 3) Immediately leave afghanistan. 4)Red states stock up on guns. 5) Red states stock up on supplies, harvest and store crops and secure wells and springs. 6) wait for New York, Washington, L.A. , and San Fransisco to be nuked by illegals smuggled over the border with nukes provided by South Korea and Iran . 7) Send in a scout from Virginia to see if the shadow of some helpless stupid urbanite shuffling across Connecticut Avenue in his sandals holding a latte from Starbucks has been perminently scorched into the Madams Organ building. 8) Have a huge party celebrating the new conservative, Tea-Party political dominance. 9) Have a huge Party celebrating all the good-looking country-goodness sweet smelling Sarah Palin like hotties that will replace the Hillary types. 10) Why do I have the feeling Bill Clinton will be there celebrating with the rest of us?

Send a Scout from Virginia? Did you read this scrawled on the walls in some cabin in the woods?

[Anonymous]

Did any of you see the recent WSJ piece on the progressivism of the American tax system? Turns out the "rich" in the USA actually pay a greater share than the rich in France. Depressing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did any of you see the recent WSJ piece on the progressivism of the American tax system? Turns out the "rich" in the USA actually pay a greater share than the rich in France. Depressing.

Can you send a link? It certainly is not the fact that wealthy are taxed at a lower rate in France. The top rate in France is 50%.

It is far more likely that France's blue collar workers are paid better and its wealthy people are less wealthy - ie, there is less of an income gap. But I doubt we would choose to give everyone free health care and raise the minimum wage in order to emulate France. But maybe I'm wrong, so send the article. I could not find it on wsj.com

[Anonymous]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703581204576033861522959234.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Not the pp you are addressing, but I found this, perhaps this is what he/she is referring to.