311–320 of 518 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not just into Afghanistan. A good chunk of the post-9/11 air patrols in North America were flown by allied aircraft.
Allied, yes -- but that was NORAD, not NATO.
(Reference: http://www.federalbudget.com/ ) Steps to recovery: 1) End all offensive military actions overseas. Finish winding down Iraq and abandon Afghanistan wholesale. These actions have cost several trillion dollars over the last 10 years. We can't get that money back, but we can stop spending more. 2) Defense spending is in the top 3 highest budget expenditures. Cut it by 1 third across the board. Maintain impor…
You forgot the War on Drugs. Get rid of it, free all the people in prison for non-violent drug-related offenses, and tax the newly legalized drugs. This should free up a lot of money that's being wasted on ruining people's lives right now, and make more money from taxing legal drugs. As a bonus, it'll get rid of a lot of organized crime. Witness what happened with the repeal of Prohibition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah, followup. Here's the link to the talk I referenced if anyone cares to take a listen. http://longnow.org/seminars/02007/jun/28/the-end-of-history-...
I'd love to listen to this, but it seems like the mp3 is corrupted. It won'd play in iTunes or Quicktime. Shame.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks. I have no refutations to any of your comments. I know exactly what you mean. One interesting thing about your first statement, "At the end of the Cold War, other conservatives were making the same noises that you're making now". A few years ago I had the opportunity to hear Francis Fukuyama speak. He was the author of The End of History and a later follow up book. I never knew it before then, but he was one o…
Ah, followup. Here's the link to the talk I referenced if anyone cares to take a listen. http://longnow.org/seminars/02007/jun/28/the-end-of-history-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only problem with slashing military spending and ending foreign interventions is that it has been just that spending, and those interventions, that have made the US the economic powerhouse it is today. The US has a history, stretching back well over a century, of launching military campaigns to support corporate interests. Be it South America, the Middle East, or Asia, the US has invaded countries and toppled gov…
Isn't the primary reason the US is rich due to being located far from the battlefields in WW1&2, and after each of these wars an influx of immigration out of Europe into the newly stimulated American industrial economy? We've essentially been riding the demographic wave up the hill since, and yet few in govt/media seem to really take this into account when planning for long-term spending and economic projections. Som…
I'm not trying to insinuate that the US is rich only because it has invaded countries and overthrown governments when doing so suited its economic interests, only that that behaviour has played a large role in its success. As such, the commonly-held libertarian view that an end to military adventurism will be a boon for the US economy strikes me as naive. I still think it's the right thing to do, but I don't argue for it on economic grounds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only problem with slashing military spending and ending foreign interventions is that it has been just that spending, and those interventions, that have made the US the economic powerhouse it is today. The US has a history, stretching back well over a century, of launching military campaigns to support corporate interests. Be it South America, the Middle East, or Asia, the US has invaded countries and toppled gov…
You're making a spurious correlation. If your assertion was correct, the French, British, Danish, Portuguese, and Spanish, et al.--the great colonial powers--should be stronger economies than the United States. http://qed.princeton.edu/getfile.php?f=European_Colonialism_... In conclusion, you've made a spurious correlation.
Also, no need to say "in conclusion" when the sum total of your argument is a single sentence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only problem with slashing military spending and ending foreign interventions is that it has been just that spending, and those interventions, that have made the US the economic powerhouse it is today. The US has a history, stretching back well over a century, of launching military campaigns to support corporate interests. Be it South America, the Middle East, or Asia, the US has invaded countries and toppled gov…
Isn't the primary reason the US is rich due to being located far from the battlefields in WW1&2, and after each of these wars an influx of immigration out of Europe into the newly stimulated American industrial economy? We've essentially been riding the demographic wave up the hill since, and yet few in govt/media seem to really take this into account when planning for long-term spending and economic projections. Som…
There are many paths to wealth. Germany is rich because of - in part - the almost total rebuilding of a ruined nation and the creation of a pretty effective post-war consensus in West Germany. In fact, I'd argue that an important part of the US's success were also an effective post-war consensus (different, but also hugely effective).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The war on drugs is only 0.5% (approx. $18 billion) of the Federal budget (approx. $3,456 billion), so it's inconsequential to our debt crisis. I whole heartedly agree that drug prohibition should be repealed, and that we need to put an end to the war on (some) drugs. But, the military, social security, and medicare comprise approx. 70% of the budget, so it's really not going to help us solve the debt.
I think indirect costs are higher than that. Prisons, for example, cost over 60 billion a year. Legalize cannabis, and I guess you can easily cut that by 25% (I know those costs probably are not federal, but do not think that matters. If your kid overspends, your family suffers) Also, the 'It is only a small fraction' argument is weak. If you really try, you can cut the entire budget into smaller parts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. Social security reform was a core part of the Democratic platform in 2000. "I will keep Social Security in a lockbox, and that pays down the national debt and the interest savings I would put right back into Social Security." (Al Gore, Oct 4, 2000). Put simply, the Democratic policy aim was to divert the surplus into paying off the debt while preventing lower interest rates from spiking government borrowing/spendi…
I think it will take more than rolling back the Bush tax cuts. If no entitlements changes are made, it would take roughly twice the GDP of the entire world: "Add together the unfunded liabilities from Medicare and Social Security, and it comes to $99.2 trillion over the infinite horizon. Traditional Medicare composes about 69 percent, the new drug benefit roughly 17 percent and Social Security the remaining 14 percen…
Returning to the issue of social security, the statistic Fisher cites comes from Table IV.B6 of the trustees’ report, which is extremely conservative in its assumptions (assuming essentially zero productivity growth over the next 50 years) and thus - even at the worst - would require only a minor tax addition to permanently solve without reducing benefits.
I do not much like your suggestion that since the Republicans instituted tax cuts the surplus is gone and there's nothing we can do about it, but will add only that if Gore's proposal had been adopted (Republicans at the time were championing the terrible idea of dumping social security funds into the stock market while cutting top-end taxes), even the "infinite horizon" figure would be nowhere near where it currently is and it would likely be possible to reduce the payroll tax or increase benefits. And given all this, I don't know how to reconcile your claim that this is not a Republican problem with the fact you claim to be a rational fiscal conservative.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, you might be surprised. Japan's market rallied 3% the day after their downgrade.
That's probably because the market thought they hit rock bottom. Markets like uncertainty less than bad news, so they are much happier knowing about the downgrade.