Politics

[RallySonsOfND]

You brought up inflation. First off you missed my point that Reagan and Bushes all left with bigger budget deficits than when they started. I am talking about annual deficits not just the actual debt.

Fyi Major inflation has always been cause by supply loss of major economic commodities.

We had bad inflation during the Carter administration. Why? The oil embargo limited the supply of oil. Oil is primary source of transportation, at that it provided a great deal of our electricity, and many plastics and other materials. So prices shot up hence our money was worth less aka inflation.

Zimbabwe had really bad inflation 3 to 4 years ago. Why? Because there was a major food shortage because the dictator was an idiot racist. He got rid of all the white farmers and instead of replacing them with black farmers he replaced them with his buddies that couldn't't farm. So food supply was very low causing prices to skyrocket causing inflation.

There is inflation done by the government on purpose but it is minor. It is done so we can essentially pay back less than we borrowed. The dollar is actually stronger today than before the Bush and Obama debts.

You really need to take a Macroeconomics class.

Inflation is caused by an increase in the money supply. That is it.

We didn't have bad inflation in the 70s, it was stagflation.

The bolded part is absolutely wrong. High prices don't cause inflation. Inflation causes high prices.

 

[chicago51]

yes those government programs are still in place today and have significance consequences on the economy... If you think you can compare the 30-40s with that of 2013, youre kidding yourself.... What was union contracts like back then? How were retirement plans setup? The rate of receiving a raise or step in pay? What was the ratio of govt worker to private sector? How did that ratio grow or shrink over time?

... cmon its not the same thing here... theres a clear problem. Govt is too big and too powerful. Programs are too complicated and are used to promote election. They are also repetitive and tend to provide more than a generous share.... if you an make the argument that a program is resourceful then the more likely it is to say, but there is clear waste out there and you dont have to eliminate programs to reduce the waste. But everyone says cut that program not mine. its amazing how dependent people are when it comes to this stuff

First off appreciate the debate.

Second I agree there is waste. My point has always been lets find and eliminate the waste. We can then keep what works.

There are consequences to programs like Social Security. Do senior citizens spend money on things? So if we just pulled all that money out would there be a decrease demand. Now there is concern about the baby boomers. So far though Social Security has more than paid for itself.

The root of the problem though is the health care cost itself. So again I asked why can't Medicare negotiate for a lower drug price. Why can't we have a public option that nobody has to use but can bid down the cost of health care?

Now if you don't think demand is what drives the economy I can't help you.

Now when it comes to creating demand. If people that spend close to 100 percent of their income which is the middle class all have jobs then demand for goods and services is going to be strong rather it is 1850 or 2013. So if the government can get more middle class people working the better the demand will in the economy. When the demand is high the private sector is going to pick up and it will create even more jobs. More jobs equals more tax revenue equals less deficit.

 

[Irish8248]

First off appreciate the debate.

second this


My point has always been lets find and eliminate the waste.

that may be your point but thats not the discussion going on in Washington unfortunately. I agree, lets find the waste, cut it down, remove it, and see where we stand... Is it significant or is it a drop in the bucket? I dont know, i have a feeling its significant though. But i think what were both saying is to eliminate the unnecessary first then move on to the next phase. Im a slightly more than moderate republican. If you told me we cut the budget by x amount and removed all the waste and reduced spending yet were still in a budget crisis, id turn to you and say alright raise those taxes, we now have a revenue problem. Unfortunately we want to raise taxes to justify spending. To me that sounds like you ask AmEx to raise your limit because you want to buy even more.



There are consequences to programs like Social Security. Do senior citizens spend money on things? So if we just pulled all that money out would there be a decrease demand. Now there is concern about the baby boomers. So far though Social Security has more than paid for itself.

its not about what its done, its about where its going. If you want to make an argument that tis paid for itself then ok, but thats becasue the baby boom is just starting to enter into it. over the next decade or so any "gain" is going to be severely wiped out. There needs to be an honest discussion about this and reform. Im not saying SS needs to be wiped out but it cant go on at this same rate.


The root of the problem though is the health care cost itself. So again I asked why can't Medicare negotiate for a lower drug price. Why can't we have a public option that nobody has to use but can bid down the cost of health care?

HC is absolutely an issue and not something that can be drafted in over 2000 pages and rammed through congress where no one read the thing. Part of the Romney plan i liked was eliminating the boarders for insurance. If you can bid your mortgage interest rates to th point where you live in Ohio and your mgtg come from the Kansas City national bank, then why cant you "bid" your insurance program? keeping it bound to state lines allows for competitors to fix the price and drive up costs. I originally lived in NY before i came ot school in Ohio, HC in ohio is much cheaper than what i paid into in NY. I think competition breeds cheap pricing. As greedy as those insurance/pharmaceuticals corporations are, it all comes down to their bottom line. They need your business to draw a paycheck. Let those big business people fight for it.


So if the government can get more middle class people working the better the demand will in the economy. More jobs equals more tax revenue equals less deficit.


government should not get the middle class to work. Govt should not be in the business of creating jobs. They should focus on making the business climate friendly. Low interest rates, more resources for business to get credits, banks to open up channels for loans and extend credit, encourage the business to grow and provide. If we reduce spending then we reduce the need to raise revenue through taxes. This will turn to even more growth and jobs in the middle class. Im not going to lie, im in law school right now and would love to secure a govt job because after 10 years my entire debt is forgiven... that being said if the climate was friendly and growing then the job placement wouldnt be an issue and the desire for a govt job wouldnt exist. The point is we survived withou the government before, we should do it again.

 

[chicago51]

[


government should not get the middle class to work. Govt should not be in the business of creating jobs. They should focus on making the business climate friendly. Low interest rates, more resources for business to get credits, banks to open up channels for loans and extend credit, encourage the business to grow and provide. If we reduce spending then we reduce the need to raise revenue through taxes. This will turn to even more growth and jobs in the middle class. Im not going to lie, im in law school right now and would love to secure a govt job because after 10 years my entire debt is forgiven... that being said if the climate was friendly and growing then the job placement wouldnt be an issue and the desire for a govt job wouldnt exist. The point is we survived withou the government before, we should do it again.

The American Jobs Act did just this. It would cut taxes on small business and do some of things that you mentioned. It does invest in infrastructure, I guess am socialist though because I think the government should fix the roads. Yes it too got filibustered in the Senate by republicans.

Cutting taxes and using it at as stimulant does work but people have to spend it not save it. Now lower and middle class people tend to spend close to 100% of their income. Not 100% as people do save but they spend most of it. Multimillionaires are not going to drastically change their level of spending if they get a tax break. They already got the money to spend. They may gamble a bit rather it be in the stock market or in real estate or something else. Multimillionaires also have the tendency to put their money in Swiss bank accounts and the government and the economy never sees a dime of that money. So a tax cut stimulus does work but they tend to work better if it is focused on small business and the middle class. The money needs to be spent on goods and services though or it doesn't help the economy. The stock market gets a great deal of attention but it really is not a good economic indicator.

The non partisan Congressional Research Committee did a study looking at jobs and taxes. Taxes on the rich have not been shown to create jobs, nor has raising taxes on the rich been shown to create or destroy jobs either.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/news/business/0915taxesandeconomy.pdf

 

[chicago51]

Polling is not always right, like the polls that thought Romney was going to win in a landslide.

It is interesting though what people think of things when they don't know who's ideas that they are voting for.

Sequester Poll: Respondents Buck Party Trends - Business Insider

Most Republicans don't actually support the House Republican plan to avert the spending cuts known as the sequester, according to a new poll conducted for Business Insider by our partner SurveyMonkey.

The poll asked participants to consider the core points of three sequester replacement proposals in Congress, without telling them the partisan affiliation of those plans. It found that in some cases, both Democrats and Republicans actually opposed their own party's plans and/or backed their adversaries' proposal.

Here are the three plans we tested:

The Senate Democratic plan cancels the $85.3 billion in 2013 sequester cuts and replaces them with a mix of spending cuts and tax hikes. The plan saves $27.5 billion by cutting farm subsidies and raises $55 billion by cutting tax deductions for oil companies and by implementing the Buffett Rule, which sets a minimum tax rate for incomes over $1 million.

The 2012 House Republican plan would cancel the $55 billion in sequester defense cuts for 2013 and replace them by shrinking funding to food stamp programs, cutting $11.4 billion from the public health fund in the Affordable Care Act, and cutting the Social Services Block Grant program, among others.

The House Progressive Caucus plan replaces the entire sequester with a new plan with equivalent savings. It accomplishes this by ending subsidies to fossil fuel companies, closing several tax loopholes, cutting the corporate meal and entertainment tax deduction at 25 percent, and enacting a 28 percent limit on certain tax deductions and extensions.

Surveys have found that asking people about just titles of plans or telling people who proposed policy, changes the results, so the point of this poll was to see what people thought of the plans when they were fully explained, but also stripped of partisan labels.

SurveyMonkey's poll, which surveyed 550 people, focused on congressional proposals exclusively. Here are some interesting findings of the poll:

Surprisingly, the plan that polled the strongest was the House Progressive Caucus plan. More than half of respondents supported it compared to sequestration and just a fifth of respondents were opposed.

A plurality of people — 28 percent — believed the House Progressive Caucus Plan would have the least financial impact on them personally. This makes the most sense, as only 14 percent of respondents reported having income over $150,000.

Shockingly, 47 percent of Republicans preferred the House Progressive plan to the sequester. This means that Republicans supported the House Progressive plan just as much as they supported their own party's plan.

Support for the Senate Democrat plan was weak, with just fewer than half of respondents preferring that plan compared with the sequester.

Opposition to the House Republican plan was strong, with 57 percent preferring the sequester to that plan.
Twice as many Republicans supported sequestration as Democrats.
One-fifth of Democrats prefer the sequester when compared to the Senate Democrats' sequestration replacement plan. About one-quarter of Republicans prefer the Senate Democrat plan to the implementation of the sequester.

Below are the full results of the poll, followed by the cross-tabs by party for individual plans:

Read more: Sequester Poll: Respondents Buck Party Trends - Business Insider
[QUOTE/]

 

[Buster Bluth]

If we wanted to fill the $85billion gap, we could simply end the Drug War and that'd do it in one swift sign of the pen. No other cuts or tax increases. Problem solved.

Would it make too much sense though?

 

[chicago51]

If we wanted to fill the $85billion gap, we could simply end the Drug War and that'd do it in one swift sign of the pen. No other cuts or tax increases. Problem solved.

Would it make too much sense though?

All right I can get on board with this plan.

All we need to do is to get John Boehner and Harry Reid to bring it up for a vote.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

If we wanted to fill the $85billion gap, we could simply end the Drug War and that'd do it in one swift sign of the pen. No other cuts or tax increases. Problem solved.

Would it make too much sense though?

Not a bad idea, but we'd definitely find people predicting a zombie apocalypse with drug addicts everywhere haha.

I don't care how you feel politically. If you aren't disgusted that the federal government can't cut 2.4% of the budget, something is wrong.

If anything, I give props to all the posters on where who are informed and engaged with what's going on, whether or not we agree or disagree. Wish more people cared like we do, on both sides.

 

[BobD]

If anything, I give props to all the posters on where who are informed and engaged with what's going on, whether or not we agree or disagree. Wish more people cared like we do, on both sides.

Agree 100%

 

[chicago51]

I don't care how you feel politically. If you aren't disgusted that the federal government can't cut 2.4% of the budget, something is wrong.

If anything, I give props to all the posters on where who are informed and engaged with what's going on, whether or not we agree or disagree. Wish more people cared like we do, on both sides.

Want to say that first foremost I really appreciate the debate. It nice to live in a place where we can do things like this.

The government can certainly cut 2.4 percent of its budget. In fact it is going to happen. Just because we can though does not mean we should. The beltway media has done such a great job focusing on the deficit and not on jobs.

 

[BobD]

So with the sequester here's how it works out.

The President (on record) wanted budget cuts and tax hikes on the wealthy. The Republicans refused to negotiate, so he only got half of what he wanted, but half a victory is better than none.

The Republicans wanted the President and the Democrats to get nothing.....oops.

The tax hikes on the wealthy will just be delayed until next year when the republicans lose their majority, and they'll be higher too.

The wealthy should have been begging the republicans to negotiate.

 

[Irish8248]

sequestration is cutting programs that actually turn a profit and are cost effective .... Military bases, particularly the Air Force Reserve base in Niagara Falls, NY where Im originally from -- are typically the largest employer in the community and provide solid jobs and families with disposable income. Sequestration removes these people from the community and deprives the local and state economy. When you take into account the mgtg, rent, discretionary spending, contribution to water/electricity rates, local taxes, that the people of the base and in theory theory the base provides, it is really unfortunate that the government is going for a definite hardline cut. Sure there are some bases out there that need to consolidated, but the overall impact should be taking into account. If the base in NF were to be consolidated it would essentially shut down and all the military would move away. Our economy in NF is already struggling, that would destroy it

 

[chicago51]

sequestration is cutting programs that actually turn a profit and are cost effective .... Military bases, particularly the Air Force Reserve base in Niagara Falls, NY where Im originally from -- are typically the largest employer in the community and provide solid jobs and families with disposable income. Sequestration removes these people from the community and deprives the local and state economy. When you take into account the mgtg, rent, discretionary spending, contribution to water/electricity rates, local taxes, that the people of the base and in theory theory the base provides, it is really unfortunate that the government is going for a definite hardline cut. Sure there are some bases out there that need to consolidated, but the overall impact should be taking into account. If the base in NF were to be consolidated it would essentially **** down and all the military would move away. Our economy in NF is already struggling, that would destroy it

Good points about how we are cutting the wrong things.

IRS is getting cut as well. I believe the IRS brings in $100 for every 50 cents spent so we are actually losing money there.

Air traffic control is getting cut. Air traffic control does bring back 11/15 through charges on plane tickets. So for every 15 dollars we cut we actually only save $4 in deficit reduction not exactly the most efficient way to bring down the debt.

The sequester does nothing address the biggest current drivers of our deficit. Rising health care cost, the war, and that the fact that the Bush tax cuts created loophole after loophole so giant corporations and the very rich pay only a small fraction of what the tax bracket says they should.

I actually think the top rate is high enough. It is really the small business owner that makes 500k a year is unfairly treated by it because that individual pays the full rate while multimillionaires pay only a fraction through deductions stock options and other tricks; not mention at times just plain hiding the money in Swiss or Camen Island bank accounts.

 

[chicago51]

So with the sequester here's how it works out.

The President (on record) wanted budget cuts and tax hikes on the wealthy. The Republicans refused to negotiate, so he only got half of what he wanted, but half a victory is better than none.

The Republicans wanted the President and the Democrats to get nothing.....oops.

The tax hikes on the wealthy will just be delayed until next year when the republicans lose their majority, and they'll be higher too.

The wealthy should have been begging the republicans to negotiate.

I would like to point out Bob D was a republican and for all I know may vote republican again some day.

It just goes to show that the party is driving people away. There is a place for being fiscally conservative in America even if I don't think so. When the president offers you a compromise that make true liberals like me angry and you don't take it; then becomes obvious you just protecting the rich.

It is going to hard for the democrats to take back the House in 2014 because the GOP gerrymandered their districts so good. In 2012 the Democrats actually won the House actually by a million and a third votes; not as much the Presidents 3.5 million but they still won.

Holding the Senate won't be a cake walk because Democrats have to defend 21 seats 7 seats in red states. In 2016 the GOP has to defend 7 seats in blue states so it does flip. I do expect the democrats to keep the Senate but lose a seat or too.

I think taking the House will be hard for the democrats. If we get some offensive rape comments it could happen. I thought the GOP was passed that but some idiot Congressman last week could not help himself.

The GOP could regret not taking the compromise and getting some the entitlement cuts they want. If the Democrats ever get both the Senate and the House during 2014 or during a Hillary Clinton presidency it is going to be a lot more taxes and a lot less cuts. It is definetly a gamble.

 

[Irish8248]

Good points about how we are cutting the wrong things.

IRS is getting cut as well. I believe the IRS brings in $100 for every 50 cents spent so we are actually losing money there.

Air traffic control is getting cut. Air traffic control does bring back 11/15 through charges on plane tickets. So for every 15 dollars we cut we actually only save $4 in deficit reduction not exactly the most efficient way to bring down the debt.

The sequester does nothing address the biggest current drivers of our deficit. Rising health care cost, the war, and that the fact that the Bush tax cuts created loophole after loophole so giant corporations and the very rich pay only a small fraction of what the tax bracket says they should.

I actually think the top rate is high enough. It is really the small business owner that makes 500k a year is unfairly treated by it because that individual pays the full rate while multimillionaires pay only a fraction through deductions stock options and other tricks; not mention at times just plain hiding the money in Swiss or Camen Island bank accounts.

HC -- Yes
War (defense contracts as well) -- Yes
Bush Tax Cuts -- No

The problem with the Bush Tax cuts is that we are still spending at alarming rates. There is no growth when you cut your revenue but continue to increase your spending. The tax cuts work when the spending is reigned because it gives Americans more money and allows business to operate with more production and capital. When the spending isnt reigned in costs, both social and commercial, are shifted onto the backs of companies. While an argument can be made that the average feels the bigger blow, its the companies who control that blow. If they are hiring and producing then the average american is less concerned since they care about their pay check. If the companies are firing, cutting back, outsourcing due to increased costs, then it puts even more pressure on the average person.

And this is where my party has done a poor job in explaining themselves (and implementing) while the other side does a great job at painting us as some greedy party looking to steal candy from a baby -- it has to be a two front plan of attack. The tax cuts and spending have to go hand-in-hand. If not then the spending is going to get out of control. Which is why you see the huge numbers associated with Obama and the deficit. He extended the cuts but took spending to a whole new level then blamed Bush. Whether he meant to do that, knowing the average american person wouldnt catch on, is outside the scope, but thats exactly what happened. Bush didnt cut spending as much as he shouldve. Thats why his economy didnt really grow but it didnt explode until housing crisis.

Clinton was able to harness this concept. Im not a Clinton fan because of the power given to the banks, he ushered in a "reform medicaid" policy that is destroying us, and his lack of commitment in foreign policy, but he was able to reduce the tax rates but also reduce and eventually balance a budget. That is what triggered the prosperity of the late 90s. That should be the key to every President/Governor/Mayor.

as for the tax code -- light it on fire and start over. Burn that thing, end the loopholes, and create a tax code that is simple and easy to follow.

 

[Downinthebend]

Does anyone know the number of countries that we have troops in?

 

[chicago51]

Does anyone know the number of countries that we have troops in?

I don't know.

Germany, South Korea, Japan, and I think we have a base in France. Afghanistan of course, a thousand or so residual troops in Iraq.


It gets me frustrated because Japan, South Korea, and Germany take advantage of the United States and tax the heck of out of our exports. We in turn protect them and don't tax their imports hardly at all. It makes me sick how we get screwed over.

 

[chicago51]

HC -- Yes
War (defense contracts as well) -- Yes
Bush Tax Cuts -- No

The problem with the Bush Tax cuts is that we are still spending at alarming rates. There is no growth when you cut your revenue but continue to increase your spending. The tax cuts work when the spending is reigned because it gives Americans more money and allows business to operate with more production and capital. When the spending isnt reigned in costs, both social and commercial, are shifted onto the backs of companies. While an argument can be made that the average feels the bigger blow, its the companies who control that blow. If they are hiring and producing then the average american is less concerned since they care about their pay check. If the companies are firing, cutting back, outsourcing due to increased costs, then it puts even more pressure on the average person.

And this is where my party has done a poor job in explaining themselves (and implementing) while the other side does a great job at painting us as some greedy party looking to steal candy from a baby -- it has to be a two front plan of attack. The tax cuts and spending have to go hand-in-hand. If not then the spending is going to get out of control. Which is why you see the huge numbers associated with Obama and the deficit. He extended the cuts but took spending to a whole new level then blamed Bush. Whether he meant to do that, knowing the average american person wouldnt catch on, is outside the scope, but thats exactly what happened. Bush didnt cut spending as much as he shouldve. Thats why his economy didnt really grow but it didnt explode until housing crisis.

Clinton was able to harness this concept. Im not a Clinton fan because of the power given to the banks, he ushered in a "reform medicaid" policy that is destroying us, and his lack of commitment in foreign policy, but he was able to reduce the tax rates but also reduce and eventually balance a budget. That is what triggered the prosperity of the late 90s. That should be the key to every President/Governor/Mayor.

as for the tax code -- light it on fire and start over. Burn that thing, end the loopholes, and create a tax code that is simple and easy to follow.

I am all for reforming the tax code. Lets end tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas why we are at it.

Clinton raised taxes. Yes I have some reservations with Clinton because NAFTA was a temporary economic boost and is now hurting us.

My big point. There is no evidence of tax breaks for the rich creating jobs. The US Congressional Research did a study looking at years of job creation and taxes. They found no evidence that twickle down economics helped create more jobs. What they did find was that there was a greater income gap when taxes on the rich were high.

The study the GOP does not want you to see: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/b...al-research-services-report-on-tax-rates.html

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/news/business/0915taxesandeconomy.pdf

I posted it couple times but apparently you didn't read it.

See this is what twickle down economics got us. It all started with the Reagan adminstration. Then the Bush tax cuts were basically the Reagan tax cuts on steriods because some of the loop holes created and the huge cut in capital gains taxes. Even Ronald Reagan thought Capital Gains should be tax as income.

Not mention high national debt since 1980 as well. I'll criticize Obama too for doubling down on failed policies his first 3 years in office and not stopping these failed policies when he had control of Congress.

I know everyone on here jokes how I blaim Reaganomics for everything. I like to see the evidence how I am wrong. I think I have shown good circumstantial evidence to how I am right. I get explanations and theories but how the job market has changed, education has changed. Yet get no hard facts or real circumstantial evidence that has shown that twickle economics has ever worked anywhere.


See America goes in cycles with this.
Twickle down didn't work during the Gilded Gage (Civil Reconstruction Era-1898) (lead to the start of the Progressive Era).
It didn't work during the 1920s as it led to Great Depression. (Lead to New Deal)
It is not working now. (I am hoping this country will have another progressive awakening).

 

[Buster Bluth]

I know everyone on here jokes how I blaim Reaganomics for everything. I like to see the evidence how I am wrong. I think I have shown good circumstantial evidence to how I am right. I get explanations and theories but how the job market has changed, education has changed. Yet get no hard facts or real circumstantial evidence that has shown that twickle economics has ever worked anywhere.

Real circumstantial evidence, isn't that a bit of an oxymoron?

See America goes in cycles with this.
Twickle down didn't work during the Gilded Gage (Civil Reconstruction Era-1898) (lead to the start of the Progressive Era).
It didn't work during the 1920s as it led to Great Depression. (Lead to New Deal)
It is not working now. (I am hoping this country will have another progressive awakening).

Major oversimplifications.

 

[Irish8248]

Does anyone know the number of countries that we have troops in?

Deployment Facts Historical|How Many Soldiers Are Deployed Overseas

 

[Buster Bluth]

Deployment Facts Historical|How Many Soldiers Are Deployed Overseas

Ugh.

We really have no reason to be in Europe at all outside of a hospital base or two. They are very wealthy nations and can defend themselves.

To be fair, the initial idea was a great one. What's the best way to stop a European World War III? Let the US be the primary defender of the continent. Now that Europe is bonded tightly and the Cold War is over, wealthy countries can pay for their own defenses.

The Pentagon is making the right decision in pivoting away from Europe to Asia. You will see friendly military policies/alliances with countries surrounding China. South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore....but also Vietnam, India, and possibly even Russia (give it twenty years).

We don't need bases in Poland, we need bases in Vietnam.

 

[Irish8248]

if you are taking one part of America and assuming that it is the same and relevant to today, then there is no need to debate anymore. Its not the same. Soooooooooo many things have changed, hell even the people have changed in power.

we have to stick to the factors of today and the future. What FDR did, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush have done only matter in that they have put us in the position that we are in. I dont care how bad Carter was or how you may feel about Bush policies, because they cant be changed. What we can say is this:

we are in a budget CRISIS
Our debt is rising at record levels
we are spending more than we are taking in
we have a bigger government than just 5 years ago
I believe we import more than we export
Unemployment is stagnant at 7+
the quality of life for americans is nothing something we brag about
we have programs that are going BK and drain this economy

.... Im sure we can add more to that.... so now, knowing all that, do you want to grow government or do you reduce the federal dependence? Before you answer that, shift this to your own home. Put your household in the spot of america. You turn to your wife who just happens to be price checking for a new car and a tiffanys watch, do you tell her honey click purchase or do you pull the plug from the computer before she can click purchase and tell her we have to change the way we live?

 

[Buster Bluth]

I believe we import more than we export

This is largely irrelevant. All trade is good and creates wealth for both parties. The world economy is not a zero sum game and hasn't been for two centuries.

Some trade is better than others though, giving hundreds of billions to the Arabs isn't the smartest policy.

the quality of life for americans is nothing something we brag about

100000% disagree.

 

[Irish8248]

Ugh.

We really have no reason to be in Europe at all outside of a hospital base or two. They are very wealthy nations and can defend themselves.

To be fair, the initial idea was a great one. What's the best way to stop a European World War III? Let the US be the primary defender of the continent. Now that Europe is bonded tightly and the Cold War is over, wealthy countries can pay for their own defenses.

The Pentagon is making the right decision in pivoting away from Europe to Asia. You will see friendly military policies/alliances with countries surrounding China. South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore....but also Vietnam, India, and possibly even Russia (give it twenty years).

We don't need bases in Poland, we need bases in Vietnam.

i have mixed feelings about europe. Im not up to date about the reason of why were in europe, so ill default. I know we have a substantial financial concern over there. But i would much rather be in Asian region. Problem is, the governments in the asian region are more radical and loose cannon. Having successful troops and bases over there requires some legit diplomacy with friendly countries. Look at South Korea, they dont have a choice, but really the North anger was tempered with us remaining in Korea. The closer we get to china, the more the chinese get pissed and we cant really afford to **** them off right now. We can start moving closer to Russia but thats a time bomb waiting to happen and they are pretty persuasive in NATO do to the surrounding countries need for oil. So maybe thats why we are in Europe? we cant get close enough to where we want to be but Europe still allows us to defend and protect with long range missile defense?

 

[chicago51]

Ugh.

We really have no reason to be in Europe at all outside of a hospital base or two. They are very wealthy nations and can defend themselves.

To be fair, the initial idea was a great one. What's the best way to stop a European World War III? Let the US be the primary defender of the continent. Now that Europe is bonded tightly and the Cold War is over, wealthy countries can pay for their own defenses.

The Pentagon is making the right decision in pivoting away from Europe to Asia. You will see friendly military policies/alliances with countries surrounding China. South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore....but also Vietnam, India, and possibly even Russia (give it twenty years).

We don't need bases in Poland, we need bases in Vietnam.

Essentially what we did in Europe to avoid ww3 is same thing we are doing with having multiple carrier groups in the Pacific. It is kind of just letting China know we are out there.

I agree Europe can defend itself and we really don't need to waste resources anymore.

 

[Irish8248]

This is largely irrelevant. All trade is good and creates wealth for both parties. The world economy is not a zero sum game and hasn't been for two centuries.

Some trade is better than others though, giving hundreds of billions to the Arabs isn't the smartest policy.


trade is good, but if were taking in more than we trade, then we are a country of consumers and not producers. Producers earn money. You want to be a country that produces. One only has to look at the oil producing countries. The government tends to be very wealthy. Unfortunately they dont develop their country, but its the same principal

100000% disagree.

by american standards -- sorry. I dont think incredibly high unemployment, a mortgage crisis, a gas crisis, and a ton of families struggling to manage day to day is something we should brag about.... our freedoms? most definitely

 

[chicago51]

Real circumstantial evidence, isn't that a bit of an oxymoron?



Major oversimplifications.

Nothing is simply because one simple black and white issue. That doesn't mean my talking points are completely wrong either.

Yea I guess real circumstantial evidence is somewhat of a oxymoron phrase. Lol.

 

[Buster Bluth]

About US deployment in Asia:

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/CXov7MkgPB4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[chicago51]

I can't get the video to play fast enough on the phone. Can I get a summary of the main points? I'll watch it later either way. The whole situation of the US military influence in Asia is intriguing for me.

 

[RallySonsOfND]

See America goes in cycles with this.
Twickle down didn't work during the Gilded Gage (Civil Reconstruction Era-1898) (lead to the start of the Progressive Era).
It didn't work during the 1920s as it led to Great Depression. (Lead to New Deal)
It is not working now. (I am hoping this country will have another progressive awakening).

You do know that the 20s (known as the Roaring Twenties) was one of the best decades of US growth ever right? The reason we went into the Great Depression is because the Fed didn't do its job as being the 'Lender of last resort' which led to a 25% decrease in the Money Supply. And guess what else, the LOWER taxes of the 20s brought in MORE revenue for the government than the skyhigh taxes of the 10s.

FDR ****ed up the 30s. He is responsible for extending the Great Depression.