Marko - 18 May 2008 11:03 AM
Everyone could get a NICE FAT tax cut of we only spent 20 times as much as all our enemies do on defense.
Way to avoid the question Marko. I’m not a supporter or defender of George Bush. Nor of John McCain. So your justification, or your explanation of what it is you people want to do to the country by just saying Bush screwed up, so therefore what harm can it do for Obama to have at it for 8 years, just doesn’t work, unless one is a partisan democrat. I have a serious problem with electing a man president, who appears to be at the least, a closet racist and more likely than not, a marxist. When Obama says he doesn’t care if his tax policies will reduce revenues to the federal government, as he did in the debate a few weeks ago regarding capital gains taxes, I have serious questions about the man’s understanding of the undeniable fact that free market capitalism is what has always differentiated this country from the rest of the world. A resume whose high point before his short stint in the US Senate, where he has done nothing other than run for POTUS, being that of a “community activist”, does not give me a great deal of comfort.
I am also not an advocate of America being the world’s policeman. So your charts on defense spending have no impact on my beliefs whatsoever. I am fully certain that there is a tremendous amount of waste involved in our defense spending. I also believe that we should withdraw our troops from Korea and from Europe. South Korea and the European Union are both capable of defending themselves, if they choose to do so. The situation in South Korea is particularly offensive to me, as the 38,000 US troops there are meant to be a sacrificial lamb in the event of a North Korean attack so as to guarantee our involvement once again on the Korean Peninsula.
I am also not a supporter of a permanent central command responsible for much of northeast Africa and southwestern to central asia.
One of the keys to smaller defense spending is for this country to become less dependent on foreign energy souces. However, the democrats talk about the “pain at the pump”, but in actuality, they have always advocated higher gasoline prices. The whole ethanol fiasaco is their doing. THe democrats are opposed to nuclear energy, to using our own sources of oil until meaningful alternatives can be developed.
My guess Marko is I am more a critic of defense spending than you and more of an environmentalist than you. However, my problem with the democrats and liberals in general is your lack of a connection to reality. Liberals consistently write off their failures by excusing them due to your original good intentions. Ethanol is a perfect example. Public Housing is another one. Forced school busing. THe list is long.
However all of this discussion does not address the question of what it is you people want to do to this country in 2009 and beyond. What specifics do liberals offer about high gasoline prices, since liberal elites have advocated higher gasoline prices for years? What specifics do liberals offer that will move this country towards energy independence sometime in the forseeable future?
Is it your belief, that free medical care and a free college education can be provided for all simply by raising taxes on the small percentage of Americans who actually pay taxes anymore? When the bottom 60% of income earners in this country pay only .6% of the federal income tax bill, I don’t see how that possibly adds up. For example, repealing the “bush tax cuts”, will only provide the federal government with an additional 40 billion dollars per year, and that assumes no impact on incentive and the economy from higher taxes. 40 billion is pocket change compared with the list of federal spending projects that Obama is talking about.
Before creating yet another massive, and probably the most massive entitlement in the country’s history, “universal health care”, don’t you think that we should first solve the social security and medicare crisis? Or is that too much to ask?
Again, I am not a Bush supporter nor a McCain supporter. But I’m looking for specifics, and I can never find a liberal who can give me any.
For example, indulge me yet another. It is now widely accepted that there are more than 20 million illegal aliens in this country today, and that number increaes each and every day. “Comprehensive Immigration Reform”, promises to make most, if not all of these people legal, and at the same time, allows for the permanent entry and legalization of all of the immediate family members of each of these 20 million people. The Heritage Foundation estimates this number to be 65 million individuals. Since our tax structure is set up the way it is, these 65 million people will not be contribuing in any meaningful way to the operation of the federal government. Yet, they would be instantly eligible for “universal health care”, free education, as well as a free college education under Obama.
Can you tell me who is going to pay for the freebies for these folks? You cannot honestly think that the 15% of us who are paying for everything can just pony up for 65 million more do you?
And leaving money aside, where will all the doctors and other health care professionals come from in short order to give all these people “universal health care”?
And the environment? Will none of these 65 million people be users of energy? Of gasoline?
Can you see where I’m going with all of this? It’s fine to promise the sun and the moon to gullible voters, but again, where is the connection to reality?