Reply With Quote
republicans and phobia go hand in hand.
The Republican party will not change its ways if it stays in power. This is why, if you are a true Republican, you are hoping McCain loses so that the Republican party will be forced to find its iden y again.
Right now it appears to be an amalgamation of the social conservatives, neo-cons, and traditional fiscal conservatives. They have been winning elections by appealing to social conservatives and neo-cons on the premise that they will be fiscally responsible, which has turned out not to be true.
republicans and phobia go hand in hand.
I promise when I'm in power your right to a gay lover will be protected.
j/k joe
1. Drop that McCain guy and nominate Ron Paul for President.
at this rate paul is going to end up with more votes.
Defense spending is too low? It accounts for 20% of the Federal Budget.
Both McCain and Obama will cut defense spending and have openly stated so.
It's insane to allocate that high a % to defense in 2008 given the severe economic and national problems in the USA right now and a $10 Trillion national debt.
When your military is light years better than the 2nd strongest military in the world, your incremental return on investment from pouring more money into this sector is low. You're already far and away #1.
You want to heavily invest in staying on top technologically, but there's no question on an aggregate level defense spending needs to and will decline with the next President. This includes the miserably failed Iraq War, which has been a negative return on investment for invested tax dollar.
#1 and #2 just aren't realistic today.
We know that #2 has been compromised in the near term due to the pending bailout.
Also, while #1 is a great ideological long-term goal, it's just not realistic as a near term goal given that whoever the next President is will need to strongly consider a temporary cut in federal revenues through easing tax policies since we are undoubtedly in a recession which has yet to peak.
I don't understand why you would think #5 would work. People have heard all the arguments for and against pro-life and pro-choice for the last 20 plus years. It's such a deeply personal issue for most people that you are unlikely to just change their mind at this point through persuasion. It's always going to be an issue America as a whole is deeply divided on almost right down the middle.
that's the lowest it has ever been. In the 60s it was 40%. No need to cut it further.
I've never heard McCain suggest that. Maybe cutting waste, but not cutting overall spending.Both McCain and Obama will cut defense spending and have openly stated so.
this is a joke, right? Our intelligence agencies are nearly what they should be. Our borders aren't secure and neither are other sensitive areas like nuclear plants etc... How in the world do you expect us to fight terrorism with a shrinking budget.It's insane to allocate that high a % to defense in 2008 given the severe economic and national problems in the USA right now and a $10 Trillion national debt.
once will kill all the terrorist and then we should consider your idea of cutting defense spending like they did in the 90s.When your military is light years better than the 2nd strongest military in the world, your incremental return on investment from pouring more money into this sector is low. You're already far and away #1.
Defense now has a rate of return? shoot War has a rate of return? what was the investment rate of return for WWII?You want to heavily invest in staying on top technologically, but there's no question on an aggregate level defense spending needs to and will decline with the next President. This includes the miserably failed Iraq War, which has been a negative return on investment for invested tax dollar.
Of course it does.that's the lowest it has ever been. In the 60s it was 40%. No need to cut it further.
I've never heard McCain suggest that. Maybe cutting waste, but not cutting overall spending.
this is a joke, right? Our intelligence agencies are nearly what they should be. Our borders aren't secure and neither are other sensitive areas like nuclear plants etc... How in the world do you expect us to fight terrorism with a shrinking budget.
once will kill all the terrorist and then we should consider your idea of cutting defense spending like they did in the 90s.
Defense now has a rate of return? shoot War has a rate of return? what was the investment rate of return for WWII?
Every dollar the federal government spends has a rate of return. It may not be easy to pinpoint or measure, but as a government you have to assess the likely benefit of every dollar you spend and prioritize accordingly.
Obviously WWII had an off the charts return on investment. Obviously, Iraq was at the other end of the extreme.
McCain did allude to overall declines in defense spending as recently as the last debate.
I'm not suggesting that because overall defense spending needs to decline that specific areas within the larger defense umbrella like technology investment and the War on Terror need to decline. More $ will be poured into Afghan/Pakistan border. Investing in defense technology has always paid good dividends for America.
Your thesis was that Republicans need to committ to reducing the national debt dramatically and to have a balanced budget. For that to occur, every issue needs to be on the table, including defense.
Every big ticket expenditure of the federal budget must be scrutinized for potential cost savings. And defense is a huge ticket item at 20%.
You are right that defense spending as a % of the federal budget has declined relative to previous USA budget's. But when compared to the % of budget defense accounts for in the budget's of other nations in the world, we are off the charts high.
If you are serious about cutting the debt and balancing budgets, you have to look at cost saving in 3 major areas: Defense, SS#, and Healthcare. Nothing should be off the table when you have borrowed so much money as we have in the past 8 years (esp after the bailout).
so when it comes to war we calculate rate of return? if so, what was the rate of return on WWII?
link?Obviously WWII had an off the charts return on investment. Obviously, Iraq was at the other end of the extreme.
linkMcCain did allude to overall declines in defense spending as recently as the last debate.
what happened to 20% is too much.I'm not suggesting that because overall defense spending needs to decline that specific areas within the larger defense umbrella like technology investment and the War on Terror need to decline. More $ will be poured into Afghan/Pakistan border. Investing in defense technology has always paid good dividends for America.
nah, just health care.Your thesis was that Republicans need to committ to reducing the national debt dramatically and to have a balanced budget. For that to occur, every issue needs to be on the table, including defense.
en lements represent 40% and growing. medicare's growth is off the charts. Defense at 20% is a historical low and is vitally important. Without defense we aint got jack.Every big ticket expenditure of the federal budget must be scrutinized for potential cost savings. And defense is a huge ticket item at 20%.
Why would the % of other coutries matter? also, don't you know we are the great equalizer in the world. Without the United States no one is safe.You are right that defense spending as a % of the federal budget has declined relative to previous USA budget's. But when compared to the % of budget defense accounts for in the budget's of other nations in the world, we are off the charts high.
Leave Defense out of it, en lements and pork are killing us. btw, do you know the true debt is 54 trillion when you include off balance sheet obligations? plus, the "bailout" will not cost us $700 billion. even our inept government should come close to breaking even on the deal.If you are serious about cutting the debt and balancing budgets, you have to look at cost saving in 3 major areas: Defense, SS#, and Healthcare. Nothing should be off the table when you have borrowed so much money as we have in the past 8 years (esp after the bailout).
You are taking the "calculate the rate of return" with regards to War spending too literally.
What were the benefits of WWII? We saved the World basically. The benefits were tremendous so it goes without say that the money we invested paid off handsomely.
What I am saying is that every government expenditure needs to have a thorough cost: benefit analysis. No way can a sector which accounts for 1/5th of all federal spending simply be declared off the table at a time like this when every dollar counts.
I would argue that you can still aggressively fight the War on Terror, continue to invest heavily in defense technologically, and get the overall figure below 20%. It's all about reprioritizing the entire defense spending budget. Some areas can still increase, if you trim enough fat to lower the overall #. Getting the heck out of Iraq is step #1.
Addressing only health care and pork barrell spending aren't going to get you there.
Pork Barrell spending accounts for a microscopic % (I believe under 1%) of our federal budget. Eliminate every dollar of pork barrell spending and you've put a bandaid on someone who's bleeding to death. Pork Barrell spending is more a symbol of what ails our political system than anything else. It's actual impact on the bottomline of our national debt and consistent annual federal deficits is vastly overstated.
BTW, I agree that the net cost of the bailout will not be anywhere near $700 B and may well end up being profitable. I'm in the pro-bailout camp. But nevertheless, we're temporarily borrowing a ton of money. The holding period on some of these assets is going to be very significant, so it will take many many years to recoup the investment. So in my mind, absolutely, in light of this do you need to take every reasonable step towards cutting future borrowing, especially given that future borrowing costs aren't going to be as cheap to the US govt as they are know.
This to me means, you have to start making difficult choices and I feel defense is too large of an expenditure on an absolute basis to simply be made completely immune to the tough choices ahead. We'll have to agree to disagree.
2 Cents,
BTW I read a lot of your takes in the "bailout" discussions and agreed with them almost down the line. I'm a business owner like yourself (I think you are at least) and it was nice to see someone else who had the guts to take a dissenting, minority position on the issue backed by sound judgement, logical reasoning, and display a thorough understanding of the crisis and it's true implications, both direct and indirect.
Please elaborate. Not if it means what comes to mind. The Free Market is key to how the USA became the most powerful nation.
No way.
The moment you announce such a policy, the border gets flooded. Even if such a plan is to be considered in the future, it needs to remain quiet until true border control exists.
2cents I'm disappointed in your change...the guys voting against this bill are the most honest men in congress...enacting the will of the people that put them in office is not politics....it's doing what they're supposed to do, whether you agree with it or not.
This bill is not going to solve the problem and if you think medicare is a spending problem just wait till everyone is on it.
I have to say what I believe is best for the country. Republicans played politics first and played honest nice guy second. Democrats are horrible, but I hold Republicans to a way higher standard.
Vouchers for basic coverage and that's it. Prices will come down dramaticaly. The problem with health care is the cost of American Care. Market can no longer bear the cost.This bill is not going to solve the problem and if you think medicare is a spending problem just wait till everyone is on it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
