United States Presidential Election 2008

[Kash]

Of course African nations spend a lot of money on the military, they're always fighting with each other. Plus, that GDP must account for the billions we throw at them each year, so technically, that military spending should fall under our defense budget

[dode74]

Of course African nations spend a lot of money on the military, they're always fighting with each other. Plus, that GDP must account for the billions we throw at them each year, so technically, that military spending should fall under our defense budget

No it doesn't. You're thinking of GNP, which is different and does include net foreign income (the current account) rather than net exports (the balance of trade). Put simply, GNP adds net foreign investment income compared to GDP.

 

Plus, how well prepared are the European forces? French troops wouldn't last a day in an attack and Italy would end up switching sides in a week

Au contraire. Having worked with US forces in Iraq and US, French, German and Italian troops in Afghanistan I'd say that the troops are all highly trained, motivated and prepared. If you want me to rank them then you won't like the list, but to be fair the majority of the US troops I've had problems with have been reservists who are on operations, and appear to be well out of their depth.

 

The US designs and builds most of its Military equipment from scratch which is very expensive compared to most other country's that just buy there equipment from the super powers like the USA, Russia, and China.

Your argument doesn't stand up: why do Russia and China have such low levels of spending compared to the US given that they also develop their own weaponry (admittedly much of China's is copied from Russia). The Chinese army is the largest in the world, yet their expenditure is les than 10% of the US'. The UK, France, Germany and Israel also all develop many of their own weapons.

 

Also, the sale of these weapons by the US generates huge amounts of revenue for the US arms industry (an abhorrent industry in itself) and, in turn, tax revenue.

[Kash]

Looks like somebody's sarcasm meter is off, I was just cracking jokes at the expense of the European forces.

[dode74]

Looks like somebody's sarcasm meter is off, I was just cracking jokes at the expense of the European forces.

Oops - I'll switch it back on

 

I probably shouldn't post until I've had my first coffee of the morning

[jammin]

I probably shouldn't post until I've had my first coffee of the morning

 

Just think of how many bad decisions must have been made over the course of history for that very reason.

[ExRoadie]

The setup:

 

A simple question begging a simple answer from Barack Obama supporters in this thread.

 

He supports the lapse of the current tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 allowing the rates to return to a higher levels saying -- "it's not actually a "tax increase." It's just the lapsing of a tax cut". Well, according to my investigation, going back to 2000 tax rates will increase taxes paid regardless of the "tax cut" that Barack Obama plans to introduce to Congress.

 

He also wants to raise the limit on taxing income at 12.4% in support of Social Security from $94,700 to $250,000. This one won't affect me but will impact many of my friends and business associates.

 

He plans to increase corporate taxes which we all know will be passed down to consumers in the form of higher prices. Everyone will pay more in taxes.

 

The question:

 

When is raising taxes a tax cut?

[Kash]

Of course it's going to increase the tax revenue, he's increasing taxes at the upper levels. He said the bottom 95% of Americans were going to get a tax cut, nothing about dropping total tax revenue.

 

Obama isn't talking about an across the board tax cut, he's only talking about a tax cut for the lower and middle classes. You can't expect him to enact his social programs without increasing revenue somehow, now could you? See, this is why we have something called reading comprehension

[suchuwato]

You can't expect him to enact his social programs without increasing revenue somehow, now could you?

 

 

Things require money. Social programs, that benefit society, aren't exempt from this... and you guys, as members of this 'society' pay for them. It's like, totally how democratic government works.

 

Protip: Considering the welfare of other people isn't being a Commie.

[LoArmistead]

I think Roadie realizes WHY he wants to raise the money...

[Kash]

Protip: Considering the welfare of other people isn't being a Commie.

 

Being a liberal, you think that sort of logic would work, but you would be wrong. I'm reading a book called Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think that's written by a cognitive psychologist, and that sort of logic simply isn't going to connect with conservatives. This isn't an attack on conservatives, there are plenty of conservative concepts that totally baffle liberals as being illogical as well.

 

I'm only a little bit in, but it's quite insightful thus far and I'm looking forward to the discussion of various social issues and how conservatives and liberals think about them. It'll help me present my arguments to these sort of threads in a far more effective manner

[UkJenT]

Funny that you say that. I find it odd how many politicians talk about their strong faith and such, but are totally against programs that benefit other people. They quickly assume your a "socialist/communist" for supporting programs (national health care, just to name one) that help others. I hate those type of people. It's total hypocrisy. How can someone constantly refer to their Christian faith but be against federal programs that benefit society? I thought the Bible talked about how we as people should help one another. Just something I've been wanting to get off my chest.

[LoArmistead]

I thought the Bible talked about how we as people should help one another. Just something I've been wanting to get off my chest.

 

I think the Bible references private charity and welfare, something the religious zealot politicians also support. The Bible doesn't say, "Now giveth thy wages to the most merciful Messiah, Obama, and he shall distributeth them throughout the land. For God said unto the world, 'I think when you spreadeth the wealth around, it's good for everybody.' "