Nevada primaries

[knucklesplitter]

Originally Posted by Dean

Better yet would be if [Obama] surrounds himself with smart people outside of the establishment who can help him do some good, but I am not holding my breath.

I like this possibility too... but see Wayne & Garth's response above.

Bush surrounded himself with synchophants and loyalty to him and party was much more important than policy and competence. There is lots to dislike about Bill Clinton before him, but he had pretty good people working for him, and they all took real national policy seriously. I don't advocate for his wife as President, but this is what we need most out of the next presidency. If somebody who can lead/inspire/bring together like Obama (debatable - I know) would do this it would be a huge improvement.

[MikeK]

Originally Posted by 100_Percent_Juice

I don't understand. I said that every form of government fails at solving mans problems. Then you say that some countries get it right. Then I say "what do you mean". Then you talk about the horrible national debt of this country as if I am debating that.

Sorry, I was in a rush before I had to go to a meeting. Scott was right, I was just pointing out one area where other countries have not dug themselves into such a hole. If you look at any other aspect of modern society, like healthcare, public education, energy use, etc, etc, there are examples around the globe of countries who are doing a better job at the moment. It can be done, but the decisions to make it happen are generally not popular in the short term, so the very nature of the political system here makes it hard to see any real long term progress on addressing problems.

[MPREZIV]

Originally Posted by MikeK

Sorry, I was in a rush before I had to go to a meeting. Scott was right, I was just pointing out one area where other countries have not dug themselves into such a hole. If you look at any other aspect of modern society, like healthcare, public education, energy use, etc, etc, there are examples around the globe of countries who are doing a better job at the moment. It can be done, but the decisions to make it happen are generally not popular in the short term, so the very nature of the political system here makes it hard to see any real long term progress on addressing problems.

Troof. Americans seem to be afraid to "bite the bullet" for the greater good, so to speak. Everybody's so worried about short term circumstances, and they lose sight of the long term, positive effects of some changes.

I personally try to put things in terms I can relate to: There's another tech here at Nissan, an old Japanese guy, who's a REALLY awesome dude. His wife has some *serious* health problems. They typically have trouble affording the care she needs, which is frequently needed, to say the least.

I stop and think to myself: "if there were some kind of healthcare reform, that caused me to shell out a bit more from my paycheck, in order to help me AND people like this who I care about, that's something I can definitely live with in order to make things better for ALL of us in the long run."

Just my $0.02 I'm not big on politics by any means, but I've got my opinions...

[Kevin M]

Yep. Taxation is neither inhernetly good nor bad. Personally, I only care about the need for what's being spent for, and how efficiently it's being spent on. And if some of my tax dollars are spent on programs that have no direct benefit for me- so what? Programs that DO benefit me do not benefit everybody else. That's how democracy works- sometimes you get what you want, and sometimes you have to let other people get what they want too.

[100_Percent_Juice]

The only way to solve economic problems is to stop funding war. Thats where all the money is going and they all know it. The problem with stopping the war effort is that for it to work, every country in the world would have to do the same. Sure there are other things that will "help" but even watching the show Future Weapons you have to say "damn I wonder how much that cost to develop?".

[Kevin M]

Originally Posted by 100_Percent_Juice

The only way to solve economic problems is to stop funding war. Thats where all the money is going and they all know it. The problem with stopping the war effort is that for it to work, every country in the world would have to do the same. Sure there are other things that will "help" but even watching the show Future Weapons you have to say "damn I wonder how much that cost to develop?".

Our economic problems are not directly related to war spending. More accurately, what we're spending on the war isn't what is putting us over budget. I'm not saying the ridiculous expenditures on the war are justified, or even kinda sorta acceptable. I'm just saying our economy isn't faltering because of them directly.

[AtomicLabMonkey]

Originally Posted by Dean

Austin, you have failed to offer an electable alternative, much less a rational for them. Perhaps you should do so rather than continuing to e-thug us.

There's a whole slate of candidates to vote for besides Romney & Clinton, I was just pointing out that in my opinion they are the worst two of the whole lot. I'd vote for Obama tomorrow if someone would let me - unfortunately they won't since our state primaries aren't until May and I don't currently belong to a party.

[100_Percent_Juice]

Originally Posted by BAN SUVS

Our economic problems are not directly related to war spending. More accurately, what we're spending on the war isn't what is putting us over budget. I'm not saying the ridiculous expenditures on the war are justified, or even kinda sorta acceptable. I'm just saying our economy isn't faltering because of them directly.

What would you say the direct effect on our economy is?

[Kevin M]

Originally Posted by 100_Percent_Juice

What would you say the direct effect on our economy is?

The government is buying goods and services for the war. People (mostly Americans) are getting paid for them. So the net effect is basically that some people are getting money at some rate of efficiency that would otherwise be spent on some other stuff/services with some other people. Net effect: not much. Effect on individuals: purley a matter of perspective. Now, ask me if I think the money spent on the war is a waste and should be used elsewhere and you'll get a different flavored answer. But I don't blame war spending for the issues our economy is having. You can thank overall piss-poor management by this Administration for that.

[sperry]

Originally Posted by BAN SUVS

The government is buying goods and services for the war. People (mostly Americans) are getting paid for them. So the net effect is basically that some people are getting money at some rate of efficiency that would otherwise be spent on some other stuff/services with some other people. Net effect: not much. Effect on individuals: purley a matter of perspective. Now, ask me if I think the money spent on the war is a waste and should be used elsewhere and you'll get a different flavored answer. But I don't blame war spending for the issues our economy is having. You can thank overall piss-poor management by this Administration for that.

The real problem with war spending is that we're spending $100B/year that we don't have. So really, we're borrowing from ourselves and the economy is suffering because someday we'll either have to spend the money to cover the debt (which *will* hurt the economy since we're paying out of the public's pockets in exchange for nothing) or we'll have to print more money to cover the debt (which will *kill* the economy due to inflation).

So while some people are earning their livelihood due to military spending, the benefit that gives to the economy overall is probably far outweighed by the fact that that money their earning is borrowed. If we were running a budget surplus, spending that money on a war would be a different story (though, IMO any surplus would be much better spent on paying back the $9T we owe ourselves, like we were doing under the Clinton administration...)

Here's a fun chart:



With the exception of Regan and the Bush's, all of our administrations reduced the national debt. That massive debt starting in 1950 was from WWII. Does anyone remember the recession in the early 90's? Anyone think perhaps that might have been related to the tax cuts and high spending of the 1980's? Does anyone feel like we're being setup for another recession by the current tax cuts and high spending?

[Dean]

Originally Posted by BAN SUVS

The government is buying goods and services for the war. People (mostly Americans) are getting paid for them. So the net effect is basically that some people are getting money at some rate of efficiency that would otherwise be spent on some other stuff/services with some other people. Net effect: not much. Effect on individuals: purley a matter of perspective. Now, ask me if I think the money spent on the war is a waste and should be used elsewhere and you'll get a different flavored answer. But I don't blame war spending for the issues our economy is having. You can thank overall piss-poor management by this Administration for that.

I don't like war, but...

The total military spending for all current engagements and other areas is less than 5% of GDP.

The U.S. is the largest manufacturer and exporter of military hardware and that industrial complex employs a boat load of people, and represents a significant amount of our exports contributing to GDP, but I can't find any useful numbers.

A significant amount of innovation that eventually reaches the consumer in some manner is funded by military and related research, and it is not just better guns. Communications, water filtration, composite materials, better engines, medicine,

So, is war bad, yes, but is it taking us into a recession, nope...

[knucklesplitter]

Originally Posted by sperry

With the exception of Regan and the Bush's, all of our administrations reduced the national debt. That massive debt starting in 1950 was from WWII. Does anyone remember the recession in the early 90's? Anyone think perhaps that might have been related to the tax cuts and high spending of the 1980's? Does anyone feel like we're being setup for another recession by the current tax cuts and high spending?

In all fairness (albeit perhaps undeserved) it was a hell of a lot easier for Ike and Kennedy because the US was booming and growing like crazy post WW2.

[sperry]

Originally Posted by Dean

I don't like war, but...

The total military spending for all current engagements and other areas is less than 5% of GDP.

The U.S. is the largest manufacturer and exporter of military hardware and that industrial complex employs a boat load of people, and represents a significant amount of our exports contributing to GDP, but I can't find any useful numbers.

A significant amount of innovation that eventually reaches the consumer in some manner is funded by military and related research, and it is not just better guns. Communications, water filtration, composite materials, better engines, medicine,

So, is war bad, yes, but is it taking us into a recession, nope...

It's funny how you can use numbers to make up anything.

5% of GDP is kind of a crap number in this conversation. GDP is basically an indication of the size of the economy... so sure, when compared to the size of the economy we're not spending that much on our military.

Buuuuuut.... the military is entirely funded by the discretionary fund, which is our tax dollars... $717 BILLION of our tax dollars... 67% of the discretionary fund. That means two thirds of every tax dollar that's not going to social security coming out of your pocket goes to the military. Who cares what percentage that is of the GDP... especially when you consider we have a trade deficit in this nation... which means that the Net Domestic Product of the nation is negative.

I'm not saying military spending is causing a recession, but massive reduction of military spending could put a bunch of money back into our pockets which does help the economy. 'Course, I've never been a fan of cutting military spending, not without guarantees for troop safety and national security. i.e. I wouldn't cut the military's budget without first getting out of the middle east and repairing our image in the world. My point is just that military spending is downright MASSIVE when compared to the rest of the gov't budget.

[Kevin M]

Originally Posted by sperry

The real problem with war spending is that we're spending $100B/year that we don't have. So really, we're borrowing from ourselves and the economy is suffering because someday we'll either have to spend the money to cover the debt (which *will* hurt the economy since we're paying out of the public's pockets in exchange for nothing) or we'll have to print more money to cover the debt (which will *kill* the economy due to inflation).

So while some people are earning their livelihood due to military spending, the benefit that gives to the economy overall is probably far outweighed by the fact that that money their earning is borrowed. If we were running a budget surplus, spending that money on a war would be a different story (though, IMO any surplus would be much better spent on paying back the $9T we owe ourselves, like we were doing under the Clinton administration...)

Here's a fun chart:



With the exception of Regan and the Bush's, all of our administrations reduced the national debt. That massive debt starting in 1950 was from WWII. Does anyone remember the recession in the early 90's? Anyone think perhaps that might have been related to the tax cuts and high spending of the 1980's? Does anyone feel like we're being setup for another recession by the current tax cuts and high spending?

I agree that severe deficit spending is bad, but that's a result of conservative fiscal policy- cut taxes, and never mind what we're spending. If they'd had the foresight to tell the American people that war is expensive nowadays and we need to pay for it, this discussion would be different. But, as I said before, the money we're spending on the war isn't what's hurting our economy, is the "bill me later" option that's doing damage.

[Kevin M]

Originally Posted by sperry

I'm not saying military spending is causing a recession, but massive reduction of military spending could put a bunch of money back into our pockets which does help the economy. 'Course, I've never been a fan of cutting military spending, not without guarantees for troop safety and national security. i.e. I wouldn't cut the military's budget without first getting out of the middle east and repairing our image in the world. My point is just that military spending is downright MASSIVE when compared to the rest of the gov't budget.

The reduction in military spending will have a negative effect on "our pockets." Why? Because we're using magical money that nobody is actually paying in taxes to fund it, whereas the spending by the government goes to people and businesses who are just as much part of the economy as you and I. (Let's not go down the path of just exactly who is getting exactly how much of that pie.) That said, is our military budget too big? Yes and no. It's bigger than it needs to be because it's not generally spent very well. On the other hand, military spending isn't an economic decision. If the military is out fighting for something we should be fighting for, then it costs what it costs. But if we're not the good guys in white hats, then none of it is justified. Our economic issues are not simple enough to be distilled down to one or three simple things, but the massive deficit spending under the last 3 Republican presidents has been a bigger cause than anything else. I don't understand how anybody thinks that conservatives are automatically the wiser fiscal policymakesrs when for almost 3 decades, they're the ones doing the most damage by not taxing appropriately for what they think we should spend.

[100_Percent_Juice]

I think the thing that bugs me the most is the way this election process works. Its been said in this thread that basically "we need to pick the guy who will F the country, the least.". What kind of a system is that?

[Kevin M]

Originally Posted by 100_Percent_Juice

I think the thing that bugs me the most is the way this election process works. Its been said in this thread that basically "we need to pick the guy who will F the country, the least.". What kind of a system is that?

The scary thing is, none of the great leaders of that last century could possibly get elected here today.

[knucklesplitter]

Originally Posted by BAN SUVS

The scary thing is, none of the great leaders of that last century could possibly get elected here today.

You don't think Eisenhower could get elected? He was the last true Republican president and one I could vote for. Maybe he's not considered "great" as a president.

Anyway... I know what you mean.

[Kevin M]

Originally Posted by knucklesplitter

You don't think Eisenhower could get elected? He was the last true Republican president and one I could vote for. Maybe he's not considered "great" as a president.

Anyway... I know what you mean.

No, I don't. He got elected because he won a war. Won't fly these days. He was also not a politician. Again, not gonna happen any time soon.

Mostly I was referring to guys like Churchill and Teddy Roosevelt and Kennedy.

[sperry]

Originally Posted by knucklesplitter

You don't think Eisenhower could get elected? He was the last true Republican president and one I could vote for. Maybe he's not considered "great" as a president.

Anyway... I know what you mean.

Rudy Giuliani is the modern day equivalent of Eisenhower. He was the guy on the ground during 9/11, just like Ike was the guy on the ground for WW2. Giuliani's not going to be president... simply 'cause 9/11 got turned into the war in Iraq. Had things been handled properly, and bin Laden captured... maybe he'd have had a chance.

[knucklesplitter]

Originally Posted by sperry

Rudy Giuliani is the modern day equivalent of Eisenhower. He was the guy on the ground during 9/11, just like Ike was the guy on the ground for WW2. Giuliani's not going to be president... simply 'cause 9/11 got turned into the war in Iraq. Had things been handled properly, and bin Laden captured... maybe he'd have had a chance.

My gawd... Giuliani is no way no how an Ike. Ike commanded effectly and successfully the allied forces in Europe in WW2, and also the NATO commander after that. Giuliani didn't do crap on 9/11. What he did do was before 9/11 he put his command post in the most obvious target in NYC - the World Trade Center despite warnings and one previous attack attempt on the towers. Rudy can't get elected because he has a proven record of mistresses including using taxpayer money for booty calls and trips with her to the Hamptons, one of his top appointees has ties to the mob and is indicted, he is pro-choice, he was in the past sympathetic to immigrants, etc. etc. and he's an asshole. Also he hates ferrets:http://www.oliverwillis.com/archives...nis-ferret-fr/

Did I mention he's a cross dresser?


If Giuliani is our modern-day Ike then we really really ARE in f-ing trouble...

[Kevin M]

Originally Posted by knucklesplitter

My gawd... Giuliani is no way no how an Ike. Ike commanded effectly and successfully the allied forces in Europe in WW2, and also the NATO commander after that. Giuliani didn't do crap on 9/11. What he did do was before 9/11 he put his command post in the most obvious target in NYC - the World Trade Center despite warnings and one previous attack attempt on the towers. Rudy can't get elected because he has a proven record of mistresses including using taxpayer money for booty calls and trips with her to the Hamptons, one of his top appointees has ties to the mob and is indicted, he is pro-choice, he was in the past sympathetic to immigrants, etc. etc. and he's an asshole. Also he hates ferrets:http://www.oliverwillis.com/archives...nis-ferret-fr/

Did I mention he's a cross dresser?


If Giuliani is our modern-day Ike then we really really ARE in f-ing trouble...

Positives about Giuliani: he doesn't follow strict party lines (i.e. pro-choice, not a jerk about immigrants)

Negatives: He's a dick, and strikes me as a guy who wants the power of elected office more than he wants to be in a position to affect what he sees as positive change.

[knucklesplitter]

Originally Posted by BAN SUVS

Positives about Giuliani: he doesn't follow strict party lines (i.e. pro-choice, not a jerk about immigrants)

Negatives: He's a dick, and strikes me as a guy who wants the power of elected office more than he wants to be in a position to affect what he sees as positive change.

Yeah, and his positives make him unelectable to be the Republican candidate. He's now 1 for 6 against Ron Paul in primaries.

[Kevin M]

Originally Posted by knucklesplitter

Yeah, and his positives make him unelectable to be the Republican candidate. He's now 1 for 6 against Ron Paul in primaries.

That's my big beef with the system. It's not the 2 party system that doesn't work, it's the way each party operates. They're both blind to the fact that half of the country disagrees completely with the party agenda, and any candidate who doesn't have policy differences witht he party he's in can't get any cooperation fromt he other half.

[sperry]

Matt I think you nailed it... Rudy *is* today's Ike... he's the guy running on a platform of popularity due to being in charge during a terrible event. We are, in fact, screwed.

Just like Rudy is no Ike, 9/11 & Iraq is no WWII, and Americans in general are self-congratulatory, arrogant, entitled, a-holes rather than humbled, hardworking people that know you have to earn what you have in life. There's something about having to grow up in the Depression only to have to fight true evil for freedom in the world that makes you into a generation that really can be considered the "greatest". I fear that our arrogance since then will mean our children are going to have to follow in our grandparent's footsteps.