saxitoxin wrote:So, anyway, back to the thread ...
Aside from the real reason I previously enunciated as to why the U.S. can't cut defence spending (a strong U.S. military is needed to incite ongoing global unrest and drive-up the price of oil, so as to checkmate China and force their continued infusion of cash into U.S. coffers; cutting the military would also cut the Chinese cash cow and you'd be at the same place you started), a more practical reason is that 60% of U.S. defence spending goes toward military salaries and benefits.
To make a meaningful cut you'd, therefore, have to either:
(1) cut salaries and benefits (politically unpalatable)
(2) begin large-scale demobilization of standing forces, driving-up the short-term unemployment rate back past the 10% mark; this is a Catch-22 for, as unemployment increases, domestic stability decreases and the need for a robust armed forces for civil contingencies is heightened
You`re quite wong about point #2, because the reduction in spending (hence tax burden and/or debt) that comes with reducing the military payroll would actually result in more jobs being created in the public sector. It's a basic economic fact.
Look at it this way, the multi-trillion cost of the wars has helped precipitate the current severe recession in the US, which of course has resulted in record unemployment.
I absolutely agree! Ol' Saxi only notes there would be a short-term rise in unemployment in the first 6-18 months following demobilization as the economy reconfigured itself, which would make it a precarious avenue of action in a weakened economic state. But Sax is in affinity with you that, in the medium to long-term, there would be an increase in private sector employment.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
PLAYER57832 wrote: Yes, its a conservative think tank. Conservative with some liberaterian leanings.
Wrong.
EDIT - It is wrong based on the way you, Player, define conservative.
Actually, I was correct. I have no idea what you think I thought conservativism means... or rather, why you seemed to feel I thought it has only one definition. But, it really doesn't matter.
Woodruff wrote:What the ELECTED Tea Partiers DO is MEANINGFUL. That's precisely what the guy from the Cato Institute was talking about. THAT is why I listen to the guy from the Cato Institute...he is dealing with the reality, rather than with the ideology. Like I said, this video absolutely supported everything I've been saying about the Tea Party, so I appreciate you posting it very much. Thanks! .
I just don't understand why any of this is a surprise.
Woodruff wrote:What the ELECTED Tea Partiers DO is MEANINGFUL. That's precisely what the guy from the Cato Institute was talking about. THAT is why I listen to the guy from the Cato Institute...he is dealing with the reality, rather than with the ideology. Like I said, this video absolutely supported everything I've been saying about the Tea Party, so I appreciate you posting it very much. Thanks! .
I just don't understand why any of this is a surprise.
There is a direct 1:1 correllation between my amount of surprise at this and my amount of surprise that President Obama has turned out to be an utter failure. What I don't understand is how you've managed to avoid one of those two surprises.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Woodruff wrote:What the ELECTED Tea Partiers DO is MEANINGFUL. That's precisely what the guy from the Cato Institute was talking about. THAT is why I listen to the guy from the Cato Institute...he is dealing with the reality, rather than with the ideology. Like I said, this video absolutely supported everything I've been saying about the Tea Party, so I appreciate you posting it very much. Thanks! .
I just don't understand why any of this is a surprise.
There is a direct 1:1 correllation between my amount of surprise at this and my amount of surprise that President Obama has turned out to be an utter failure. What I don't understand is how you've managed to avoid one of those two surprises.
In Player's defense, I was actually surprised by how fast President Obama succumbed.
Woodruff wrote:What the ELECTED Tea Partiers DO is MEANINGFUL. That's precisely what the guy from the Cato Institute was talking about. THAT is why I listen to the guy from the Cato Institute...he is dealing with the reality, rather than with the ideology. Like I said, this video absolutely supported everything I've been saying about the Tea Party, so I appreciate you posting it very much. Thanks! .
I just don't understand why any of this is a surprise.
There is a direct 1:1 correllation between my amount of surprise at this and my amount of surprise that President Obama has turned out to be an utter failure. What I don't understand is how you've managed to avoid one of those two surprises.
Not a surprise. I had hoped Obama would do differently. I was relatively sure he would do better than the alternatives, though McCain might have had promise.
but, see, that is the basic difference here. My expectations for politicians are very low. Also, he did actually accomplish some of what he said he would. I am happy that my husband and I will get medical coverage in a few months.. provided the Repubs and Tea Partiers don't knock the healthcare law down.
In other words, you folks want to see the glass as half empty. Some want to see the glass as half full. To me, its just half a glass.
Woodruff wrote:What the ELECTED Tea Partiers DO is MEANINGFUL. That's precisely what the guy from the Cato Institute was talking about. THAT is why I listen to the guy from the Cato Institute...he is dealing with the reality, rather than with the ideology. Like I said, this video absolutely supported everything I've been saying about the Tea Party, so I appreciate you posting it very much. Thanks! .
I just don't understand why any of this is a surprise.
There is a direct 1:1 correllation between my amount of surprise at this and my amount of surprise that President Obama has turned out to be an utter failure. What I don't understand is how you've managed to avoid one of those two surprises.
Not a surprise. I had hoped Obama would do differently. I was relatively sure he would do better than the alternatives, though McCain might have had promise.
but, see, that is the basic difference here. My expectations for politicians are very low. Also, he did actually accomplish some of what he said he would. I am happy that my husband and I will get medical coverage in a few months.. provided the Repubs and Tea Partiers don't knock the healthcare law down.
In other words, you folks want to see the glass as half empty. Some want to see the glass as half full. To me, its just half a glass.
No...to you, it's a liberal glass or nothing.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Woodruff wrote: No...to you, it's a liberal glass or nothing.
So folks say now.
The funny part is my views have not changed much in 20 years.. yet I have gone from being an ardent conservative with a touch of liberalism on some environmental issues to being a full-fledged liberal, with just a touch of conservativism on some religious/social type issues. (and even in that I seem to be labeled liberal).
The truth is that environmental issues have gone from being important, but misunderstood and even over-stated to being truly major issues that simply have to be dealt with... and the rest follows that.
